Knock knock, its God calling

[EgejskaMakedonia]

Fred Nile = Tom...lol

We don't hear much from Fred Nile these days, I think you would have been pretty young EM, when Mr Nile used to regularly grace us with his presence on TV...

I recognised the face but had no idea who he was. I've seen him pop up every now and then, but I had to look up his profile on the Q&A website to know what he was all about.

Needless to say, if his comments during the show tonight are anything to go by, I'm not surprised I've never heard of him. He is a fossil by all accounts.

[George S.]

well i wonder if tom is going to accept being compared to fred nile.Just think he can have his own show.

[Vangelovski]

Well, if I remind EM of Fred Nile and Fred Nile is a fossil, then I guess I must be a fossil as well. No progressive relativism for me (which ultimately has no meaning and anything goes - think about the implications for Macedonian ideology if nothing else!!).

[EgejskaMakedonia]

Well, if I remind EM of Fred Nile and Fred Nile is a fossil, then I guess I must be a fossil as well. No progressive relativism for me (which ultimately has no meaning and anything goes - think about the implications for Macedonian ideology if nothing else!!).

Don't get me wrong, you are well and truly 'with the times' in terms of most topics. Did you happen to watch the episode I posted above? In that particular context and within the scope of that debate, I could've sworn it was you.

[Vangelovski]

Don't get me wrong, you are well and truly 'with the times' in terms of most topics. Did you happen to watch the episode I posted above? In that particular context and within the scope of that debate, I could've sworn it was you.

I haven't watched the video yet. EM, not sure what 'with the times' means, but I think you'll find my view of morality is grounded in a book that dates back as far as 3,500 years ago. So, I think I still fit into your 'fossil' description.

[Risto the Great]

my view of morality is grounded in a book that dates back as far as 3,500 years ago. So, I think I still fit into your 'fossil' description.

You sound like a dinosaur.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

I haven't watched the video yet. EM, not sure what 'with the times' means, but I think you'll find my view of morality is grounded in a book that dates back as far as 3,500 years ago. So, I think I still fit into your 'fossil' description.

Yes, you do fit that description when it comes to this issue. Fred Nile also has this kind of approach.

Don't you think that morality evolves over time? Trying to apply moral standards from a book dating thousands of years ago to some modern-day dilemmas seems rather reckless.

I strongly recommend anyone to watch the episode as it relates very closely to some of the issues that have been discussed in this thread. Fred Nile adopts the exact same stance as you do to the point of almost frightening or perhaps cautioning others that they may not be admitted into Heaven if they don't do such and such. Amanda Vanstone also makes a good point by quoting her grandma who said, 'if you are nice to people everyday...you'll get into any Heaven worth getting into.'

Here's a decent question from last night:

Rebecca Kriesler asked: Why is it that when the bible contains something obviously ethically wrong (Such as: “Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.” - Psalm 137:9) religious people claim that the bible is just a guideline and shouldn’t be taken literally. However the second someone brings up gay marriage they use the bible as a concrete reason to oppose it?

You could substitute almost any modern moral issue in for gay marriage, whether it be abortion, etc. So why do you infer a meaning from some passages and take others literally, which you have done so in this thread?

[Vangelovski]

Yes, you do fit that description when it comes to this issue. Fred Nile also has this kind of approach.

Don't you think that morality evolves over time? Trying to apply moral standards from a book dating thousands of years ago to some modern-day dilemmas seems rather reckless.

I strongly recommend anyone to watch the episode as it relates very closely to some of the issues that have been discussed in this thread. Fred Nile adopts the exact same stance as you do to the point of almost frightening or perhaps cautioning others that they may not be admitted into Heaven if they don't do such and such. Amanda Vanstone also makes a good point by quoting her grandma who said, 'if you are nice to people everyday...you'll get into any Heaven worth getting into.'

Here's a decent question from last night:



You could substitute almost any modern moral issue in for gay marriage, whether it be abortion, etc. So why do you infer a meaning from some passages and take others literally, which you have done so in this thread?

EM, when you answer my questions on the previous page I'll answer yours.

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

[Risto the Great]

Morality does change over time. Sometimes it can be a pendulum swinging between various levels of opposing extremes. Other times it is a permanent shift. It can be effected by economic factors. We can see how attitudes to slavery, homosexuality, abuse of animals for entertainment etc. have changed over time. Clearly morality has changed.

Fred Nile hasn't.

[Vangelovski]

Morality does change over time. Sometimes it can be a pendulum swinging between various levels of opposing extremes. Other times it is a permanent shift. It can be effected by economic factors. We can see how attitudes to slavery, homosexuality, abuse of animals for entertainment etc. have changed over time. Clearly morality has changed.

Fred Nile hasn't.

Individuals change their own subjective moral values all the time - they make up their own rules about whats good and what's not, usually based on nothing more than their gut feelings. Objective moral values do not change. They are universal and eternal. If they did change, we'd be in a lot of trouble. That needs to be thought through to its logical conclusion.

Let me give you an example. If morality changes over time, as you suggest, then how do we know, for example, that we're right and Greece is wrong on the name issue? I'm suggesting that we will always be right on that issue because we have a right to self-determination (which is unchangeable), whereas if moral value systems change and there are no objective moral values, the moral foundations of our claim (self-determination) could change and the reverse would be true - that Greece's demand for our submission on the name is reasonable, or at least morally neutral. If that is the case, why are we so upset? What we have - a right to self-determination - would just be a fleeting fad and the fyromians might just be right afterall - do whatever feels good at the time! And on the topic of fyromians, when you call them that you are making a moral judgement - that they are wrong and you are right. But if there are no objective moral values on which to make this judgement, what makes you think you are right?

Going even further, if there are no objective moral values, how can we say we have any rights at all? On what could we possibly base human/natural rights? The right to life, for example, would be an absurd notion. On what basis would we have this right? Why should anyone even care?

[Risto the Great]

I was pointing out that morality changes. You agreed that morality changes, albeit subjective ones. We both agree here.

Now we would have to look at objective moral values I assume.
Then we would have to look at the Macedonians and Greece and see if that fits into your objective moral values.

[Risto the Great]

Let me give you an example. If morality changes over time, as you suggest, then how do we know, for example, that we're right and Greece is wrong on the name issue? I'm suggesting that we will always be right on that issue because we have a right to self-determination (which is unchangeable), whereas if moral value systems change and there are no objective moral values, the moral foundations of our claim (self-determination) could change and the reverse would be true - that Greece's demand for our submission on the name is reasonable, or at least morally neutral. If that is the case, why are we so upset? What we have - a right to self-determination - would just be a fleeting fad and the fyromians might just be right afterall - do whatever feels good at the time! And on the topic of fyromians, when you call them that you are making a moral judgement - that they are wrong and you are right. But if there are no objective moral values on which to make this judgement, what makes you think you are right?

Your version of objective morality is based on God.

If God supports nations, then he supports Greece more than Macedonia as a nation. They seem to be his preference. How do reconcile that kind of spiritual backing? Do we fight for our nation and ask God to bless us in our endeavours? If we have in the past, he sidestepped Macedonia more than enough times. In fact, Macedonia fared far better pre-Jesus!

I am indeed making a judgement about the people that feel comfortable bypassing my right to my identity and ancestry. It feels right to many like minded Macedonians.

Are you suggesting we can only ever be right if objective moral values are applicable?

The name issue is based on generally accepted human rights. I don't think there needs to be a God concept to justify this position. You do. We are both deeply committed to the notion but probably from slightly different angles. Does it really matter as long as we are united in relation to the right?

[Vangelovski]

I am indeed making a judgement about the people that feel comfortable bypassing my right to my identity and ancestry. It feels right to many like minded Macedonians.

How do you even know that you have a right to an identity? Where does this right come from? Is it just a feeling? What about those who feel that you don't have a right to an identity? Does your feeling count for more or does theirs? I don't know what you or any other individual are feeling, so how can you objectively explain whether you're right or they are right?

Are you suggesting we can only ever be right if objective moral values are applicable?

Yes, otherwise any discussion of morality, justice, fairness etc etc is meaningless. Its like saying you think 2+2=4 while I disagree and say 2+2=5. There has to be an objective truth otherwise its an absurd and meaningless discussion.

The name issue is based on generally accepted human rights. I don't think there needs to be a God concept to justify this position. You do. We are both deeply committed to the notion but probably from slightly different angles. Does it really matter as long as we are united in relation to the right?

Where do these generally accepted human rights come from? They don't sound like rights at all if they are simply based on an unelected body (the UN) making up the rules as it goes along. They sound more like fleeting privileges bestowed on us peasants by unelected dictators based on their whim.

Further, if the UN is the arbiter of the 'generally accepted human rights', then why are we complaining about the name? The UN has already dealt with that matter and decided that Greece has a legitimate objection, meaning we need to find a 'mutually acceptable solution'. To what exactly are we appealing to when we say the UN is wrong if there is no higher law or objective moral value system?

I'm not questioning your undying patriotism here RtG - let that never be I'm simply trying to give clear examples to demonstrate my point.

[Bill77]

In fact, Macedonia fared far better pre-Jesus!

A long time ago (only just post Jesus) Macedonians were complimented as the most faithful.

Today, we have Preists pinning people against fences,
greedy authorities from MOC trying to steal possessions,
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,
Citizens from the republic worship another God (Euro) and kingdom (European union),
Buildings once built in honour of God are left to be desecrated because of priority change

So is God really to blame?

I suppose the higher you are, the harder you fall

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

[Risto the Great]

How do you even know that you have a right to an identity? Where does this right come from? Is it just a feeling? What about those who feel that you don't have a right to an identity? Does your feeling count for more or does theirs? I don't know what you or any other individual are feeling, so how can you objectively explain whether you're right or they are right?

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.

I also feel I should have a right to wear women's panties (but I keep that to myself) and hope it may become more acceptable in time. However, I don't regard that right as universal as the one about my identity. As important as my right to wear women's panties is, I tend to think of a ranking of rights. Some are more important than others. The more people agreeing, the better.

Yes, otherwise any discussion of morality, justice, fairness etc etc is meaningless. Its like saying you think 2+2=4 while I disagree and say 2+2=5. There has to be an objective truth otherwise its an absurd and meaningless discussion.

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.

To what exactly are we appealing to when we say the UN is wrong if there is no higher law or objective moral value system?

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.