No that would be you.

Yer welcome sonny.

Incoherent with nothing to do with the issues in the thread.

Thanks, sonny.

Regards
DL

>That moral tenet....

What part of God is not a moral agent do ye not understand sonny? We went over this lad 3 months ago. I am not repeating myself.

"God is not a respecter of persons".

>If true, then we end with more souls lost to Satan than souls saved by Yahweh.

It is a general interpretation of Holy Writ and the majority opinion of the Fathers that the majority of the human race will be damned and a minority saved. However it is not an infallible dogma. The Church has allowed alternate interpretations and arguments that the majority are saved and only a minority are damned. Thought this is a later interpretation it is a valid one that a Catholic may hold.

Myself I belong to the third school. We are not really meant to know. If we knew for absolute certain the majority would be damned that might temp us to the sin of despair. If we knew with absolute certainty the majority would be saved we would be tempted to the sin of presumption.

So we are not meant to know. If the majority are damned then the Holy Church would have defined it as a formal dogma by now.

She hasn't so......

That moral tenet is about the only objective moral tenet I know of that has not been shown to ever be subjective. Yahweh seems to be doing the wrong thing.

We are told that most of us will end on the wide road to hell while the few end on the narrow path to heaven.

It is demonstrable that nature creates for the best possible end.

Why does Yahweh not follow the better rules he gave nature, and creates us for the worst possible end for the vast majority of us?

A decent father would not have the morals or ethics Yahweh seems to follow.

If true, then we end with more souls lost to Satan than souls saved by Yahweh. Even as scriptures say that Yahweh wills that all souls be saved.

God not getting his will is not allowed. God must always come out ahead. Something is not right for god.

Thoughts?

Where hell is at issue, god does not show love at all.

Regards
DL

I always consider unprovoked name calling by my interlocutor a win.

You not seeing a moral violation in genocide and a god who can cure as easily as kill, and always chooses to kill, shows your corrupted morals, and you don't care.

"I don't think that way. My God promise life eternal."

If you got that directly from god, fine, if not, you are a liar.

Regards
DL

>So if it is not god creating gays, then nurture is what is creating gays. Right? You left no other option.

God creates all rational human beings with a soul. I already agreed to that. I also said it isn't an either or thing. So I'm not sure why you set up false dichotomies. Fallacies don't arrive at truth except by accident. Nurture is a loaded ambiguous gray science description. You'd have to pinpoint exactly what you mean by such a word as to not talk past each other.

>If so, why are you not condemning those who nurture instead of their victim?

Condemning someone else is above my paygrade.

>You are a geneticist are you? Of course there is. It is the defective one that god put into him or her.

I'm not a geneticist. I hold several science degrees including a postgraduate professional science degree. I not new to scientific literature. If you are putting forth the claim there is a "gay gene" I'd appreciate the scientific literature that supports that claim. Epigenic marks that are expressed as a result of androgen level influences during development are not a nurture/nature dichotomy. Fallacies don't arrive at truth except by accident.

>On genocidal prick.

I talk human death and you talk of breaking pots.

I talk allegory and metaphors to explain the truth of why Catholics don't see any moral violation. This is normative in discussions of how the human intellect can comprehend the divine intellect. If you can only make sense of literal truths theism and the Bible are going to be impossible for you to comprehend from my Catholic paradigm.

>You are correct that morals are subjective and not objective.

Never said such a thing. I said if they are not objective they are a figment of our imagination. I'm a hard skeptic toward the claim subjective morality contains with it any knowable knowledge. The irrationality of subjective morality is why I'd be a moral nihilist if I were atheist. But I'm not. That's your problem not mine. You have to convince me your subjective moral knowledge is knowable before I'd consider any moral dilemma. Any moral presupposition you begin with I'll find a way to make an ethical dilemma that forces you to do something immoral by your own standards. That's how moral relativism works. Being a recovered moral relativist I highly doubt you're going to present an argument I haven't already seen.

>What subjectively or otherwise thinking has you thinking that genocide is good justice?

Justice assumes objective morality. Morality assumes a moral agent and an authority lawgiver. If you assume your own subjective morality you are your own lawgiver and justice is irrational. Are you going to punish yourself for a subjective good or are you going to break your own laws so you can punish yourself? It's not hard for me to think in moral relativism, I had my head up me ars for most my life :)

Genocide is mass murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. It is never ok to unlawfully take human life and yes God cannot in principle ever be guilty of murder because no act of Him taking human life is unlawful.

Perfectly moral. Pro-choice godless persons who advocate late term abortion have nothing to say here.

Come back when you learn a wee bit about the metaphysics of morality and maybe you might present a challenge.

Same here. Yer testimony based Atheism is very boring. Try philosophy next time.

I see that you are not worth my time.

Thanks for the chat.

Say hi to your genocidal satanic god when you finally get to hell.

Regards
DL