Knock knock, its God calling

[Risto the Great]

Today, we have Preists pinning people against fences,

Some known wanker is right in my face taking pictures, I would let him know I'm not happy. I think I would still qualify for heaven if I was a priest.

greedy authorities from MOC trying to steal possessions,

I can't see that as a violation of the bible. They still make it to heaven as far as I can tell.

an alarming amount of Macedonians with no faith where its got to a stage those small amount of what's left as faithful are ridiculed,

Depends what aspect of faith is ridiculed.

I often beg God not to hold me being a Macedonian against me. Like always, he understands.

What does he do?

Bill, I still think you associate Christianity with niceness. I know you. You are nice! I genuinely don't think someone needs to be nice (the way many of us define it) to qualify as a Christian.

[Vangelovski]

If my feeling is well supported by a number of other people and it does not seem to violate other generally accepted rights, then I think it would be safe to say I am onto something.

If rights are solely based on gut feelings and the number of people that share this gut feeling, then I think we have a problem. Considering there are more Greeks and fyromians in the world than Macedonians we don't actually have a right to an identity. What happens now?

Good point. Is it God that tells us 2+2=4 ? Do we need that as the ultimate measure in this specific instance? It seems we might need an adjudication board, perhaps a church hierarchy, to verify that an outcome meets certain objective morality standards. We can use the Spanish Inquisition for inspiration.

We only need the Bible to discover objective moral rights...and some effort on our own part.

A higher law is convenient for matters such as this. It would be excellent if God came down and made a speech at the UN on our behalf. In the meanwhile, I think if we are going to subscribe to the objective moral value system, we would also have to feel compelled to create an objectively moral Atlas. We would have to carve out a portion of Poland for the Kashubians and likewise in Germany for the Sorbs and probably need to leave Australia to the Aborigines etc. Where does it stop with all this objectivity? I admit it sounds good on paper.

You didn't really answer my question. If the UN (who is the author of the 'generally accepted human rights' you referred to) is the ultimate arbiter (it must be as it wrote those human rights instruments) how can we claim that it is wrong in relation to the name issue? What makes it wrong? The gut feeling of a few thousand Macedonians?

[Risto the Great]

If rights are solely based on gut feelings and the number of people that share this gut feeling, then I think we have a problem. Considering there are more Greeks and fyromians in the world than Macedonians we don't actually have a right to an identity. What happens now?

We need to rely on God to justify our position? Is that it? Bullshit.

Greeks and FYROMIANS will also have God supporting them under your brand of Godliness as well. They are God's people too.

We need to rely on who has the most to lose in this instance. Macedonians lose an identity. Greeks lose a feather they have placed in their cap. FYROMIANS lose a couple of Euro.

We only need the Bible to discover objective moral rights...and some effort on our own part.

I think you rely on it. Hundreds of millions of people don't know anything about it and seem to have a sense of social and moral awareness that you seem to equate with objective morality.

You didn't really answer my question. If the UN (who is the author of the 'generally accepted human rights' you referred to) is the ultimate arbiter (it must be as it wrote those human rights instruments) how can we claim that it is wrong in relation to the name issue? What makes it wrong? The gut feeling of a few thousand Macedonians?

You didn't really respond to mine. Will you not rest until we have completely redrawn the borders of the world, until God's work is done? Under your definition, God tells us it must be done. It is what makes it right! How can you merely accept something that Macedonia gains from but no other nations. It sounds selfish to me. You should be relentless in realising God's version of "right". Give your house to the Aborigines!

Sure, we can be empowered because God tells us we are objectively morally right. Why not. But it seems so many other can as well. In other words, it seems all this objectivity can get pretty subjective if you ask me.

I wasn't referring to the UN's definition. I was merely talking about generally accepted rights. Rights that we often see as being accepted by many societies. I do not see how Christianity in any way provides an objective moral right to a national identity. Tell me how it does please. Because I think Christianity has far more important matters it concerns itself with.

[Vangelovski]

We need to rely on God to justify our position? Is that it? Bullshit.

Greeks and FYROMIANS will also have God supporting them under your brand of Godliness as well. They are God's people too.

We need to rely on who has the most to lose in this instance. Macedonians lose an identity. Greeks lose a feather they have placed in their cap. FYROMIANS lose a couple of Euro.

You said rights were based on feelings. I questioned that, just as you have been questioning my views and I've had the decency to explain them. I'm not sure where you're going with this latest comment?

Lets assume that objective moral values do not exist, as you are now arguing. You stated that we have a right simply because we feel we have a right and that the more people that feel they have such right justifies the right. I pointed out that we are outnumbered. My question was what do we do from here? It appears that we don't have a right to an identity, according to your worldview, if that right is based solely on the number of people that feel we have it.

What happens to Macedonian minorities in Greece, where the vast majority don't feel Macedonians should have the right to a Macedonian identity? We say they do have rights, but according to who or what? The majority in that country feel that they don't. So what do we do there? How do we justify the Macedonian (as we define it) cause there?

I think you rely on it. Hundreds of millions of people don't know anything about it and seem to have a sense of social and moral awareness that you seem to equate with objective morality.

You don't seem to be paying attention to what I'm actually writing. Noone ever suggested that you cannot determine objective moral values apart from the Bible. Sorry RtG, but this is just a straw man.

You didn't really respond to mine. Will you not rest until we have completely redrawn the borders of the world, until God's work is done? Under your definition, God tells us it must be done. It is what makes it right! How can you merely accept something that Macedonia gains from but no other nations. It sounds selfish to me. You should be relentless in realising God's version of "right". Give your house to the Aborigines!

Sure, we can be empowered because God tells us we are objectively morally right. Why not. But it seems so many other can as well. In other words, it seems all this objectivity can get pretty subjective if you ask me.

I wasn't referring to the UN's definition. I was merely talking about generally accepted rights. Rights that we often see as being accepted by many societies. I do not see how Christianity in any way provides an objective moral right to a national identity. Tell me how it does please. Because I think Christianity has far more important matters it concerns itself with.

I asked my question first. The rest of this has nothing to do with anything that I have said. Your merely setting up another straw man.

In relation to 'generally accepted rights', if you're not referring to the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, what exactly are you referring to? What are these generally accepted rights and who accepts them? If we are saying that the UN is wrong in relation to our name, and objective moral values do not exist, and you're not referring to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, then what exactly are we appealing to? How do we justify our cause and why should anyone care, including Macedonians?

This is a whole new concept that you've put forward. I've tried explaining my views as best as I can. I only ask that you do the same.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

And? So what? That is a relative 'better' in comparison to someone worse. Both are evil when compared to the perfect moral law. To Bill77, you stated that God is wrong for seeing all sin as evil. Who are you to say that God is wrong? Who are you to determine what is morally good and morally right? Why should we give any consideration to anything that you think? Like I said to TM, when you create your own universe, then you can make your own rules. Until then, you're just kidding yourself.

Refer to my post to Bill. How on earth can you consider someone who commits rape or murder on the same level as someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed their family? Technically they are both sins, and in your view evil, so they are immediately thrown into the same basket in the eyes of God? It's nothing complicated Tom, it just violates my personal view on morality and I'd be extremely worried if you don't see it in the same light. I didn't say God is wrong, I'm questioning His moral compass. But on the flip-side, who are you to tell everyone here that they are wrong and won't be admitted into Heaven for questioning the logic of Christianity? Who are you to say that others who are faithful to another religion won't be accepted into Heaven? If you were born into a Muslim family, you would essentially be a product of such an environment and would likely be here today arguing for their version of events.

There is no evidence at all Tom to suggest that a greater being created the universe. Regardless of what you say, there is just none. The problem is, nothing can really explain what existed before the big bang, and what caused it to occur. For this very reason it is possible that a God exists and made it all happen, but unless you were there and saw it with you're own two eyes it is statistically impossibly to verify such an event when you have no evidence. I, and I'm sure many others find it mind-boggling to even imagine the notion of 'nothing' before the big bang. I think our minds are just incapable of projecting or devising such a thought.

I have created my own universe Tom. Everything I've done in my life has moulded me into the person I am today. I've devised my own rules that I live by and I'll die by. No greater being told me to believe in what I do, it was my own conscious decision.

It is an easy way out because God did the work for you - you just have to accept His gift. And God did this because he loves us like a father loves his children and would do the same for them. But like I said, whether a human father or God, ultimately you'll respect your children's decisions.

Hypothetically speaking, if your children made their own conscious choice to opt out of religion, would you forever hold that against them? Would you try to convert them? Isn't religion all about self-guidance and a kind of awakening? Lecturing others on why they should believe so and so is on the verge of brain-washing. If God loves us, why would he condemn the best of us who are non-religious to Hell, while the worst of us who are religious are given a 'free ticket' so to speak. Like I said earlier, can it really be called Heaven when half the people there could be murderers, rapists, etc? What about all those sell-out Macedonians, I don't know if I'd want to be standing next to them in Heaven.

Again, no matter how 'good' you think you are, you're not really good at all. I'm sure you've hated, lied, lusted, cheated and stolen more than once in your life. Even doing it once is a moral abomination unworthy of spending an eternity with a Holy God.

I don't think I'm 'that' good at all. I'm generally a rather pessimistic person, so I've got no ego problem Tom. Yes, I am guilty of some of those things, but again, how can there possibly be no judgement on a person by person basis?

The justice is that wrong and evil require punishment and God paid that punishment. If you choose to accept His payment as a full and final settlement by putting your faith in Him then you are counted, so to say, worthy of spending an eternity with Him. But if you choose to pay the punishment yourself, then so be it.

I think I already asked, not necessarily you, but why do you feel you can disbelieve in God and then demand residence in His Kingdom? Explain to me how your version of justice works?

What about in cases like the one I mentioned earlier? If a father steals a loaf of bread to help his dying son, isn't this a conflict of two different principles? Has God set precedence in such an event? What's stopping people from just putting their faith in God a day before they die? It seems like a rather flexible decision.

Most people who don't believe in God do not demand residence in His Kingdom at all. You know why? Because they don't believe in Him! For them, Heaven does not exist because they do not believe in God. My version of justice is that if Heaven truly does exist, people should be admitted based on their merits, regardless of whether they believe in it or not. Those who have committed horrific crimes should have a higher standard applied to them. What about animals, why aren't they given the same opportunity to put their faith in God? They are God's creations after all...right? I've never seen a dog or cat turning up to church and praising the Lord. They may just be animals, but that doesn't seem very just either.

What?? How is belief/trust giving something??? What exactly are you giving? If you believe the earth revolves around the sun, what exactly are you giving??

Seriously, WTF? What cult have you confused Christianity with? And why is it good when you help others because you feel like it, but not when God commands you to help others?

Belief and trust IS something. You are giving the church your confidence. All those Catholic families that attended the Catholic church instilled their trust and confidence in the Church, and this was violated with the on-going activity of child sex abuse. This very example shows that belief and trust does amount to giving something. You are giving your time, which evidently gives rise to an opportunity cost.

I don't have it confused with any cult Tom. Some people donate large amounts of money to the Church. I usually give small donations whenever I attend as well. I believe that people should help others regardless of whether God commands them to or not. It is one of the elements of a decent human being. We shouldn't have to rely on a greater being to tell us to help others, it should be of our own initiative.

By that stage it will be far too late for you EM. I can be absolutely certain that God exists simply by looking all around me. Can you tell me how anything at all could exist without God to create it? How can something come from nothing? Please think about this rather than just posting what ever comes to your mind first.

Absolutely certain how? Can you actually back that up with evidence as opposed to just telling me to look outside the window? You ask all these questions, but when the question is reversed you will not be able to provide a viable answer either. That is because there is no definite answer. We will never know how 'something came from nothing.' It is impossible to know. Who created God? Who created the person who created God? It's an never-ending loop that provides no outcome at all.

Why do all religions compete? Seriously, are you looking at it that superficially? Its because there can only be one truth, not multiple contradictory truths.

That's what every religion says, 'there can only be one truth.' So who's lying then? Perhaps they are all lying? Perhaps none of them are lying? We will never know.

Have you not paid any attention to anything that I've written? You are free to decide what you believe, but with that freedom comes consequences.

Lol, not this threat again. It seems that consequences will result wherever I go if I'm going to be surrounded by murderers, psychopaths, etc in both Heaven or Hell.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

But if morality changes over time, then are you suggesting the Greek occupation of Macedonia was morally good at some stage? Why?

This is a bullshit question. I'm not even going to bother answering it. You know very well what I was alluding to when I discussed morality changes over time.

[Vangelovski]

This is a bullshit question. I'm not even going to bother answering it. You know very well what I was alluding to when I discussed morality changes over time.

No, I actually don't. You need to be more specific.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

No, I actually don't. You need to be more specific.

Feel free to answer my questions in the previous two posts first.

But for the record I'm referring to things such as abortion, homosexuality, etc.

Also, it is impossible for ALL of the moral grounds adopted thousands of years ago to apply in a modern context. This is because there is no chance that they could've foreseen the type of society we live in today. Cars, computers, etc bring a number of moral issues to the table that weren't relevant a few hundred years ago, let alone thousands of years ago.

[Vangelovski]

Refer to my post to Bill. How on earth can you consider someone who commits rape or murder on the same level as someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed their family? Technically they are both sins, and in your view evil, so they are immediately thrown into the same basket in the eyes of God? It's nothing complicated Tom, it just violates my personal view on morality and I'd be extremely worried if you don't see it in the same light. I didn't say God is wrong, I'm questioning His moral compass. But on the flip-side, who are you to tell everyone here that they are wrong and won't be admitted into Heaven for questioning the logic of Christianity? Who are you to say that others who are faithful to another religion won't be accepted into Heaven? If you were born into a Muslim family, you would essentially be a product of such an environment and would likely be here today arguing for their version of events.

Straw man, straw man, straw man. Why is it that you always need to create a straw man? Do you know what straw men are?


I never said anything that I invented myself – I’m simply conveying what God has said.

There is no evidence at all Tom to suggest that a greater being created the universe. Regardless of what you say, there is just none. The problem is, nothing can really explain what existed before the big bang, and what caused it to occur. For this very reason it is possible that a God exists and made it all happen, but unless you were there and saw it with you're own two eyes it is statistically impossibly to verify such an event when you have no evidence. I, and I'm sure many others find it mind-boggling to even imagine the notion of 'nothing' before the big bang. I think our minds are just incapable of projecting or devising such a thought.

Really, no evidence? And yet you’re so sure there was a big bang? I began providing some evidence - more on it below - but you chose to ignore it.

I have created my own universe Tom. Everything I've done in my life has moulded me into the person I am today. I've devised my own rules that I live by and I'll die by. No greater being told me to believe in what I do, it was my own conscious decision.

Where is this universe EM? Can you show it to me? Or is it in your own mind? So you live by your own rules and only by your own rules? Teach me to defy gravity.

Hypothetically speaking, if your children made their own conscious choice to opt out of religion, would you forever hold that against them? Would you try to convert them? Isn't religion all about self-guidance and a kind of awakening? Lecturing others on why they should believe so and so is on the verge of brain-washing. If God loves us, why would he condemn the best of us who are non-religious to Hell, while the worst of us who are religious are given a 'free ticket' so to speak. Like I said earlier, can it really be called Heaven when half the people there could be murderers, rapists, etc? What about all those sell-out Macedonians, I don't know if I'd want to be standing next to them in Heaven.

WTF? Straw man, Straw man, Straw man, Straw man. Random words here completely ignoring what you wrote and just rambling on about nothing…

I don't think I'm 'that' good at all. I'm generally a rather pessimistic person, so I've got no ego problem Tom. Yes, I am guilty of some of those things, but again, how can there possibly be no judgement on a person by person basis?

What about in cases like the one I mentioned earlier? If a father steals a loaf of bread to help his dying son, isn't this a conflict of two different principles? Has God set precedence in such an event? What's stopping people from just putting their faith in God a day before they die? It seems like a rather flexible decision.

Most people who don't believe in God do not demand residence in His Kingdom at all. You know why? Because they don't believe in Him! For them, Heaven does not exist because they do not believe in God. My version of justice is that if Heaven truly does exist, people should be admitted based on their merits, regardless of whether they believe in it or not. Those who have committed horrific crimes should have a higher standard applied to them. What about animals, why aren't they given the same opportunity to put their faith in God? They are God's creations after all...right? I've never seen a dog or cat turning up to church and praising the Lord. They may just be animals, but that doesn't seem very just either.

Nice little universe you’ve created for yourself. After you teach me how to defy gravity, can you teach me to bend other physical laws? Or don’t they exist in your universe where you make the rules that you live by?

Belief and trust IS something. You are giving the church your confidence. All those Catholic families that attended the Catholic church instilled their trust and confidence in the Church, and this was violated with the on-going activity of child sex abuse. This very example shows that belief and trust does amount to giving something. You are giving your time, which evidently gives arise to an opportunity cost.

I put my trust in JESUS. How did you not get that? Where did I say put your trust in a church organisation or a priest or anything else other than JESUS?

I don't have it confused with any cult Tom. Some people donate large amounts of money to the Church. I usually give small donations whenever I attend as well. I believe that people should help others regardless of whether God commands them to or not. It is one of the elements of a decent human being. We shouldn't have to rely on a greater being to tell us to help others, it should be of our own initiative.

What do voluntary donations have to do with your previous comment?


Straw man.

Absolutely certain how? Can you actually back that up with evidence as opposed to just telling me to look outside the window? You ask all these questions, but when the question is reversed you will not be able to provide a viable answer either. That is because there is no definite answer. We will never know how 'something came from nothing.' It is impossible to know. Who created God? Who created the person who created God? It's an never-ending loop that provides no outcome at all.

The question of who created God does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists. How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.


Back to looking outside the window – if God does not exist, where did everything come from?

That's what every religion says. 'There can only be one truth.' So who's lying then? Perhaps they are all lying? Perhaps none of them are lying? We will never know.

You'll know one day.

[Vangelovski]

Feel free to answer my questions in the previous two posts first.

But for the record I'm referring to things such as abortion, homosexuality, etc.

Also, it is impossible for ALL of the moral grounds adopted thousands of years ago to apply in a modern context. This is because there is no chance that they could've foreseen the type of society we live in today. Cars, computers, etc bring a number of moral issues to the table that weren't relevant a few hundred years ago, let alone thousands of years ago.

What is the etc? ?Don't human rights stem from moral values in your universe? Do you know what moral values are?

Give me an example of something to which Biblical principles do not apply. You said cars and computers - what about them? What moral issues do they pose that aren't covered by God's law? The whole Bible, not just your extremely limited reading of it.

I'll answer your question when you post the full psalm and not just one sentence from it. You know, context and all that stuff.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

Straw man, straw man, straw man. Why is it that you always need to create a straw man? Do you know what straw men are?


I never said anything that I invented myself – I’m simply conveying what God has said.

Really, no evidence? And yet you’re so sure there was a big bang? I began providing some evidence - more on it below - but you chose to ignore it.

Where is this universe EM? Can you show it to me? Or is it in your own mind? So you live by your own rules and only by your own rules? Teach me to defy gravity.

WTF? Straw man, Straw man, Straw man, Straw man. Random words here completely ignoring what you wrote and just rambling on about nothing…

Nice little universe you’ve created for yourself. After you teach me how to defy gravity, can you teach me to bend other physical laws? Or don’t they exist in your universe where you make the rules that you live by?

I put my trust in JESUS. How did you not get that? Where did I say put your trust in a church organisation or a priest or anything else other than JESUS?


What do voluntary donations have to do with your previous comment?


Straw man.

The question of who created God does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists. How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.


Back to looking outside the window – if God does not exist, where did everything come from?


You'll know one day.

Is this really all you've got? I don't see much point in me answering if you are just going to side-step half my questions. Especially when I've addressed all your questions, regardless of how ridiculous I think some of them are. Once again, you are choosing the questions that suit you, and avoiding ones that don't.

Get some sleep, come back tomorrow, and then give it another shot.

[Vangelovski]

Is this really all you've got? I don't see much point in me answering if you are just going to side-step half my questions. Especially when I've addressed all your questions, regardless of how ridiculous I think some of them are. Once again, you are choosing the questions that suit you, and avoiding ones that don't.

Get some sleep, come back tomorrow, and then give it another shot.

No EM, I've been addressing every single comment you make while you completely ignore mine, misconstrue it and then just raise up straw men for yourself. If its good enough for you to treat my posts like that, then that is exactly how I'm going to respond to you from now on.

Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here

[Risto the Great]

You said rights were based on feelings. I questioned that, just as you have been questioning my views and I've had the decency to explain them. I'm not sure where you're going with this latest comment?

I question someone who believes rights do not come from feelings. I feel decent in questioning that. I would think feelings can help generate some kind of social acceptance on various matters. What are you relying on? You can change your decent opinion now and suggest God gives us these feelings, that can work in my mind. But, then again, if God gives us free will, then our feelings would be our own I suppose. I'm confused again. But I still think feelings amongst a society will generate actions and motivations and acceptances which will ultimately facilitate the creation of rights.

Lets assume that objective moral values do not exist, as you are now arguing. You stated that we have a right simply because we feel we have a right and that the more people that feel they have such right justifies the right. I pointed out that we are outnumbered. My question was what do we do from here? It appears that we don't have a right to an identity, according to your worldview, if that right is based solely on the number of people that feel we have it.

You have an awful tendency to put words in people's mouth. I haven't really stated objective moral values don't exist. I'm not sure to be honest, but I think they might. I've questioned where they come from. On the identity matter I said nothing of the kind you are suggesting. I made it really clear, Macedonians are putting their identity on the line in this game. The Greeks and FYROMIANS are not. The ranking is clearly in Macedonia's favour in terms of significance.

What happens to Macedonian minorities in Greece, where the vast majority don't feel Macedonians should have the right to a Macedonian identity? We say they do have rights, but according to who or what? The majority in that country feel that they don't. So what do we do there? How do we justify the Macedonian (as we define it) cause there?

The 3 people in Ofchareni can say God is on their side. But the key is the Republic of Macedonia and its identity. The rest will follow if they are desirous. We justify the Macedonian cause because people like my family are victims of the racism that dominated the region, there are still people who are victims of racism there. We remember. And racism is considered bad. Is it objectively bad? You can tell me that.

Specifically on this issue. If God came down to Earth for a bit of a yarn to the Macedonians in Greece and proposed the following options:
- kill that former Turkish national living next to you.
- speak Greek from now on and love that former Turkish national next to you.

Which one is closer to the message from God we assume is correct?

You can talk about objective moral values which empower the Macedonians in Greece, but why not follow it through? God is on the Macedonian side in Greece under your proposal. It is KILLING TIME! Time to unleash! We have God on our side! Glorious stuff here. Tell me when to stop please!

Where am I wrong? God gives us this right according to you. It is an objective moral right according to you. It has nothing to do with numbers according to you. I like it. It is wonderfully empowering. The 3 people in Ofchareni would be champing at the bit I imagine. What are you practically going to do with this justification of yours?

You don't seem to be paying attention to what I'm actually writing. Noone ever suggested that you cannot determine objective moral values apart from the Bible. Sorry RtG, but this is just a straw man.

Cough cough, pig's arse. If you're saying objective moral values do not need to come from the bible, then welcome to the airy fairy club like the rest of us. I prefer your black and white approach. It is comforting to know it is either right or wrong according to God and no further questions need to be asked. So simple! I would prefer it in a perfect world. Objective moral values come from God. God's word is in the bible. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work

I asked my question first. The rest of this has nothing to do with anything that I have said. Your merely setting up another straw man.

In fact, the UN has it right. They agree with Macedonia on this issue. The FYROMIANS do not agree and they preferred to call themselves FYROMIAN instead of Macedonian. So my answer is well and truly addressed now. The generally accepted human rights as embraced by the UN would have held Macedonia in good stead. But the FYROMIANS did not agree. They told the UN they wanted to be called FYROM. They signed an agreement to make it so.

Now, are you giving your house to the Aborigines or not? They have seem to meet all your God approved criteria. Why is this line of inquiry in the straw man category? Why don't you address it? Why are you violating their God given rights willfuly?

In relation to 'generally accepted rights', if you're not referring to the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, what exactly are you referring to? What are these generally accepted rights and who accepts them? If we are saying that the UN is wrong in relation to our name, and objective moral values do not exist, and you're not referring to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, then what exactly are we appealing to? How do we justify our cause and why should anyone care, including Macedonians?

I have told you. The UN are right. The FYROMIANS are not.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

No EM, I've been addressing every single comment you make while you completely ignore mine, misconstrue it and then just raise up straw men for yourself. If its good enough for you to treat my posts like that, then that is exactly how I'm going to respond to you from now on.

Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here Random text here

You're very mature for an admin. Seems like your only form of defence is to attack. The onus is on you to prove the existence of God, Heaven, Hell and whatever else is in the Bible. You're the only one here saying that your stance is absolute and certain, so actually prove it. You should be able to confidently answer any question we throw at you, whether you consider it ridiculous or not.

I've made an effort to address every single question you've posed, for you to say the same is an absolute joke. I'm still waiting for a proper response to my other post.

[Vangelovski]

I question someone who believes rights do not come from feelings. I feel decent in questioning that. I would think feelings can help generate some kind of social acceptance on various matters. What are you relying on? You can change your decent opinion now and suggest God gives us these feelings, that can work in my mind. But, then again, if God gives us free will, then our feelings would be our own I suppose. I'm confused again. But I still think feelings amongst a society will generate actions and motivations and acceptances which will ultimately facilitate the creation of rights.

RtG, like you’ve said to me on a number of occasions – I just don’t buy it. The whole notion of rights based on feelings seems flimsy and dangerous to me. Look no further than Gruevski. Some days he feels we have rights and others he doesn’t. The result is a yo-yo policy. Are changing, non-definable feelings really what you want rights to be based on?

Obviously our gut feeling differs from Gruevski’s. Without an objective moral value system to test our feelings against those of Gruevski, how do we know we are right? Maybe we are just deluded? If rights cannot be rationally expressed and their basis cannot be rationally expressed, then I can’t really accept it. Emotion alone is not enough for me. I guess I simply don’t have as much faith as you do J

You have an awful tendency to put words in people's mouth. I haven't really stated objective moral values don't exist. I'm not sure to be honest, but I think they might. I've questioned where they come from.

Actually, you’ve questioned their very existence and your argument that rights are based on feelings denies the existence of objective moral values by definition. If moral values are based on feelings then they are individually created and by definition are subjective. If they are created by individuals’ feelings then they cannot be apart from humanity and cannot be objective.

If you decide that objective moral values do exist, then the question is where could they possibly come from? Where can intelligent moral values that are apart from individual human feeling and opinion possibly come from?

The 3 people in Ofchareni can say God is on their side. But the key is the Republic of Macedonia and its identity. The rest will follow if they are desirous. We justify the Macedonian cause because people like my family are victims of the racism that dominated the region, there are still people who are victims of racism there. We remember. And racism is considered bad. Is it objectively bad? You can tell me that.

This isn’t about saying God is on our side. It’s about objectively analysing whether we are on His side based on His moral law. You need to flip it around.

I consider racism bad because God tells me it’s bad. As the creator of the universe, He is the objective moral law, judge, jury and executioner. On occasions, I might feel differently, but that does not make me right.

You say racism is bad, but if there is no objective moral law, how can we know? There are millions of people who feel that it is good. Who’s to say who’s right and who’s wrong? Is it simply a matter of might is right? If that is that case, then morality does not exist and we have no reason to feel wronged. But we do feel wronged.

Specifically on this issue. If God came down to Earth for a bit of a yarn to the Macedonians in Greece and proposed the following options:

- kill that former Turkish national living next to you.
- speak Greek from now on and love that former Turkish national next to you.

Which one is closer to the message from God we assume is correct? .

Neither. The problem here is that you are not getting any of this from the Bible. You’re just making it up. If you want to know what God thinks, then read the Bible. If not, why even attribute something to God that’s not?

You can talk about objective moral values which empower the Macedonians in Greece, but why not follow it through? God is on the Macedonian side in Greece under your proposal. It is KILLING TIME! Time to unleash! We have God on our side! Glorious stuff here. Tell me when to stop please

Where am I wrong? God gives us this right according to you. It is an objective moral right according to you. It has nothing to do with numbers according to you. I like it. It is wonderfully empowering. The 3 people in Ofchareni would be champing at the bit I imagine. What are you practically going to do with this justification of yours? .

Refer to my comment above.

Cough cough, pig's arse. If you're saying objective moral values do not need to come from the bible, then welcome to the airy fairy club like the rest of us. I prefer your black and white approach. It is comforting to know it is either right or wrong according to God and no further questions need to be asked. So simple! I would prefer it in a perfect world. Objective moral values come from God. God's word is in the bible. Tell me where I'm wrong.

I never suggested that the Bible is the only way to determine objective moral values in a general sense – My comment was specifically in response to your Spanish Inquisition etc etc comments.

God also gave you the ability to reason. Even if you never had access to the Bible, you could still work out right from wrong because objective moral values exist and God has created us with this non-physical characteristic called a conscious that He tugs at every so often.

In fact, the UN has it right. They agree with Macedonia on this issue. The FYROMIANS do not agree and they preferred to call themselves FYROMIAN instead of Macedonian. So my answer is well and truly addressed now. .

Is the UN right? The UN Security Council determined that Macedonia needs to negotiate on its name. This determination was made on a basis of a moral claim by Greece. Greece claimed ownership over the name and identity ‘Macedonia’. The UN Security Council agreed with this claim. So did the fyromians. The point is, the UN was wrong.

The generally accepted human rights as embraced by the UN would have held Macedonia in good stead. But the FYROMIANS did not agree. They told the UN they wanted to be called FYROM. They signed an agreement to make it so .

The IA was signed in 1995, two years after the UN determined that Macedonia was wrong in relation to the name issue. I’m not sure now whether you are appealing to the UN Declaration of Human Rights or not? You’re saying the ‘generally accepted human rights’ as embraced by the UN would have held Macedonia in good stead. But the UN Security Council decided that Macedonia did not have a moral claim to its identity – in 1993, two years before Macedonia agreed to negotiate through the IA. The fact that the fyromians accepted this makes our position (if objective moral values do not exist) even more tenuous. If we are not appealing to objective moral values, then we are quickly losing the battle here. The only thing left is force and we don’t have it.

Now, are you giving your house to the Aborigines or not? They have seem to meet all your God approved criteria. Why is this line of inquiry in the straw man category? Why don't you address it? Why are you violating their God given rights willfuly?

This is a straw man because I haven’t even stated what objective moral values I think apply here. You’re just making an assumption. All I’ve been trying to argue is that objective moral values do exist and we should be appealing to them.

At the end of the day everyone chooses to believe what they want. These debates are good and healthy. If we didn’t have them we’d turn stale and end up like UMD – directionless.

I believe that God exists, that he created everything and that the Bible is his word. I believe this because existence coming out of nothing makes no sense and is not possible. I also believe it because there is no actual uncontested evidence for the theory of evolution, it’s a flimsy theory with massive gaps and physical impossibilities (such as the problem of information). I believe in God because of the very existence of non-physical properties such as moral values (objective or subjective), beauty, reason etc. Without God, it would not be possible for these things to exist or to come into existence out of physical matter (something that evolutionary theory doesn’t even try to explain).

This is why I chose to accept God’s moral value system, which is unchangeable and easily defined. If you choose to understand morality and rights through your own subjective feelings, then so be it.