Knock knock, its God calling

[Risto the Great]

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

If an objective moral right is to smash babies against the wall. How do you reconcile every feeling within our bones that it is wrong? Maybe it is a bad example. Maybe it isn't. But why do you seek to discard feelings from the equation?

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.

The feelings are indeed individually created. When there is consensus or mass acceptance, they constitute values. I haven't said they are objective yet. Though I am absolutely sure many feelings will line up with objective moral values quite succinctly.

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?

What on earth would "intelligent" moral values connotate and why would you feel the need to state them as such. Give me an example of an intelligent one.

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.

If we are on his side. We are empowered. If we are not, we are not empowered. Do we disagree? If I flip it, I get to the same place.

Do you seriously think God actually gives a shit about nationalities? (maybe a separate question, maybe not)

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.

Does he really tell you that? The old testament kind of goes against that in a massive way.

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.

Many people who are not with God feel wronged for the same reason. Is God helping those who do not even know of him. I've been to China so many times, it is so interesting for me to see their versions of morality given there rejection of Christianity. They are generally very much like us.

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? [/COLOR]

'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these Seriously? That is in the bible mate. That would include former Turkish nationals. Get back to me when you re-read that part.

The other one logically flows from your assessment of objective morality. I can't arrive at a different conclusion. You tell me where I should go with it.

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.

How do you work out right from wrong if your feelings don't help you? Does our consciousness remain apart from our feelings. I think you've lost yourself on this one. Without a conscience, we are unable to feel right or wrong. You can't have one without the other and feelings are a integral part of the equation.

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 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.

You wanted me to comment on the UN's generally accepted rights. Now you want me to comment on a UN decision (which actually violated those rights). What do you actually want me to talk about? They are two very separate matters.

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.

You are telling me what objective moral values you think apply here. Later you tell me they are black and white. I think they are often grey at best.

And you still haven't offered your house to the Aborigines in the park near you. Isn't that hypocritical?

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 be impossible for these things to exist or to come into being 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.

I think debate is healthy. I tend to think of myself as an uncomfortable fence sitter on matters of faith. I don't think His moral value system is easily defined at all. Because if I am to accept some of your easily defined values, they clash and that causes me all kinds of confusion. Hence my world of grey.

[Vangelovski]

RtG, can you honestly say that you've studied the Bible? I mean, really honestly?

The verses you have pointed out as 'contradictory' are based on a superficial reading of them. If I say that I should look out for you (just say you're crossing the street and a bus is about to hit you I would grab you or at least call out), that doesn't mean that I shouldn't defend myself if you decided to get too 'friendly' (if you know what I mean). There is no contradiction there. While as individuals we should look out for each other because we are all human beings, it doens't mean we can't and shouldn't protect ourselves from each other when necessary. I don't see the difficulty there. I don't know why intelligent people get confused when it comes to God.

Besides, in the original greek are there three different words to indicate three types of love. The word used here in the original is agape - it means to look after each other, to look after others as you look after yourself. It doesn't mean let them walk all over you, oppress you, abuse you or whatever else you want to falsly attach to it.

When I said intelligent moral values I mean't it in terms of logical, rational, intelligible - a moral value that can be defined and explained rationally.

You can base your claims to rights where ever you like, but feelings change, which means rights can change.

[Risto the Great]

RtG, can you honestly say that you've studied the Bible? I mean, really honestly?

I've tried to read it a few times. I'm still working through Game of Thrones at the moment.

The verses you have pointed out as 'contradictory' are based on a superficial reading of them. If I say that I should look out for you (just say you're crossing the street and a bus is about to hit you I would grab you or at least call out), that doesn't mean that I shouldn't defend myself if you decided to get too 'friendly' (if you know what I mean). There is no contradiction there. While as individuals we should look out for each other because we are all human beings, it doens't mean we can't and shouldn't protect ourselves from each other when necessary. I don't see the difficulty there. I don't know why intelligent people get confused when it comes to God.

I'm not convinced the concept of nationality is an objective moral value. It might be black and white to you. But history has shown us enough nations disappearing to make it clear that this is not black and white!

Besides, in the original greek are there three different words to indicate three types of love. The word used here in the original is agape - it means to look after each other, to look after others as you look after yourself. It doesn't mean let them walk all over you, oppress you, abuse you or whatever else you want to falsly attach to it.

The Macedonians in Greece speak Greek now. Some are intermarried with with the former Turkish Nationals. Most don't really feel desperately oppressed from what I can see. So I ask again, what practically does it mean to feel that they have won the objective morality test in your opinion? How do we rely on it practically? Do we point to the old map and say "it is God's will" now?

If we use "agape" I still arrive at the same conclusion. Don't be killing (or whatever) your neighbour.

When I said intelligent moral values I mean't it in terms of logical, rational, intelligible - a moral value that can be defined and explained rationally.

You mean one that can be defined and explained rationally after reconciling with the mystery of faith. Many people would say you've gone from black and white to an infinite array of greys. But your faith guides you here, which is excellent, but it does not translate as such for everyone else. I think it is greyer for everyone else. And there is a proportion of Christians who seem to carry around a sense of smugness in this regard that some fence sitters find strangely offensive. (A subjective opinion from me)

You can base your claims to rights where ever you like, but feelings change, which means rights can change.

Possibly the subjective ones based on our preceding discussions and conclusions. For me, the jury is still out on objective ones!

All interesting and thought provoking stuff.

I'll assume you don't want to give your house to the Aborigines and you're going to turn a blind eye to that lesson in objective morality.

[Vangelovski]

I've tried to read it a few times. I'm still working through Game of Thrones at the moment.

Come on RtG, I expect more from you mate than just going on assumptions without actually trying to learn about the subject matter. Let me know when you've made an attempt to study it. Maybe then we can get back to what moral values I've actually said apply (none yet) and why the Aboriginal example you bring up is a straw man.

Until then, I'm going to put the shoe on the other foot and have a go at explaining why accounting makes no sense

Obviously I know absoultely nothing about accounting, so I'm just going to go by my assumptions and things I've heard from other uninformed people. For example, the double ledger system makes no sense. Isn't it just duplication and an exercise in over complication by accountants to keep us uninformed and their pockets lined? And can't accountants just jimmy the books so that noone ever has to pay any taxes? Are accountants in on it with the Tax Office? Don't they just get a percentage of the taxes we pay?

Maybe this quote is of relevance here:

"The opinion of ten thousand men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject."
-- Marcus Aurelius

[Risto the Great]

Obviously I know absoultely nothing about accounting, so I'm just going to go by my assumptions and things I've heard from other uninformed people. For example, the double ledger system makes no sense. Isn't it just duplication and an exercise in over complication by accountants to keep us uninformed and their pockets lined? And can't accountants just jimmy the books so that noone ever has to pay any taxes? Are accountants in on it with the Tax Office? Don't they just get a percentage of the taxes we pay?

I rely heavily on smoke and mirrors. I won't tell you what kind of smoke and I won't tell you what I do with my mirrors. That is the mystery of my profession.

The only difference is that people can work out my mystery.

[Vangelovski]

I rely heavily on smoke and mirrors. I won't tell you what kind of smoke and I won't tell you what I do with my mirrors. That is the mystery of my profession.

The only difference is that people can work out my mystery.

literally tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, have worked out my "mystery" as well and it doesn't take anywhere near as long (I've heard it takes 3-4 years to become an accountant). How many accountants are there in the world?

[Risto the Great]

Hundreds of millions of people have not worked it out, not been interested or follow some other mystery. Whatever floats their boat.

With regret I will also inform you that there are nowhere near enough accountants in the world.

[George S.]

i watched q&a & one of the people who said god doesn't exist.He said how the universe doesn't need a creator.The universe is self creating with parallel universes.They said time & space created itself.He siad the creation of space & time created all the time.I don't beleive this as i think a creater god created time & space.

[Risto the Great]

God’s moral value system

OK, back on it. As if I don't have enough other work to do. But eternal salvation sounds cool.

What is God’s moral value system? Are we sure the right to our national identity exists in this system. What makes our identity a God given right?

[Dimko-piperkata]

hey brother´s....how could u debate such a issue without me

erich von däniken has absolutley right....thats also my point of view