Well, you all I can say is the hundreds of Christians that I know don't believe in a Miltonian hell. That's all I can tell you...
Personally, if there was this Creator, oh, let's just call him God hey? I would expect that EVERYONE would be christian! Why not? How freaking SIMPLE would it be for him? Apparently, you don't believe in free will. What can I say to someone who does not believe human beings have choice?
>4. Modern psychological studies show that the traditional >family is best statistically for children exactly as you >would expect if there was a Creator. Now there is a leap. If the Creator had decided that only lesbians should be raising kids and all hetros should give up their offspring for lesbian raising you would then be saying that this would also be what you would expect from the Creator. You are WAY into "after the fact" here Shoe. Here's what I'm saying. In the 60's and 70's the Sexual Revolution occurred and every pop psychologist and grungy rock star slammed JudeoChristianity for its traditional morality. 20 years later everyone discovered that, lo and behold, kids from a traditional family do statistically drastically better than their non-traditional peers in almost every category. Coincidence? Of course, I say not.
>Well, you all I can say is the hundreds of >Christians that I know don't believe in a >Miltonian hell. That's all I can tell you... Yes, continue to endlessly hide behind your "Miltonian hell'. Other than you not a single person here has even hinted at that term let alone bit on it. Why don't you join our conversation involving biblical hell. JB
>lo and behold, kids from a traditional family >do statistically drastically better than their >non-traditional peers in almost every category. >Coincidence? Of course, I say not. You're damn right it's not a coincidence. And that has what to do with a creator or god? Never mind. JB PS. I teach the above to be the best way to raise kids. Is that evidence that I am god?
Because discussions about hell do not prove or disprove God. People either like/understand the concept of hell or they do not. This thread is about arrogant people saying the scientific evidence does not in any way match the theistic position. And that's simply not true. If everyone wants to talk about hell, then it shows this very point.
>4. Modern psychological studies show that the traditional >family is best statistically for children exactly as you >would expect if there was a Creator. How can you come up with a better fit then "the two beings that created the third and who thus will on average care more about it than the random others would be the ones to best care for it and prepare it for life on it's own". It's a perfect fit evolution wise to say the "traditional family" is best on average. Please tell me how it is that this fits the theistic model "better"? This is amusing to me. Are you suggesting that diehard evolutionary humanists who spawned the sexual revolution in our society are now suggesting that evolution mandates a traditional family? I just don't buy it...
>Are you suggesting that diehard evolutionary >humanists who spawned the sexual revolution >in our society are now suggesting that evolution >mandates a traditional family? I am suggesting nothing other than what is in the statement. And you aren't answering the question. JB
>This thread is about arrogant people saying the >scientific evidence does not in any way match >the theistic position. And that's simply not true. Please find me a single post in this thread where someone says the above. There is a world of difference between "it does not in any way fit" and "it does not in any way prove". ANY method of universe formation can fit the theistic notion of an omnipotent and omniscient creator because this creator can do ANYTHING. I can't stop laughing at your missing of this concept. JB
How you raise your kids or I raise my I raiise my kids is not relevant. What I am saying is that it's yet another "coincidence" that the biblical view of how to raise a family is the one that matches with the statistical evidence. Does this prove God? Of course not, but it's yet another coincidence and is yet one more thing that challenges the arrogance of most of the early part of this thread.