But it takes so long to evolve

MikeAs a Christian, I certainly hope not. And I certainly haven't suggested that anyone should be punished for it.But don't you think that far too many Christians really don't have a clue about the history of Christiantity.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't know many christians. Immediately, I can only think of me. Everybody I know is atheist or agnostic.I agree nobody should be punished for it.As far as I am concerned the history of christianity is the history of those who have been succesful in following Christ's teachings. So - the people who have correctly lived and adhered to the teachings. Are we talking of those people?If you are talking about people who have failed to follow Christ's teachings - then I would disagree that they were christians.BTW. Did you like The magician's nephew?

Well, that's like saying your brother the crook is not really your brother.Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, Luther, Hitler, King James, Queen Mary (both), Henry and such were Christians. We must condemn those things that they did which were wrong, but we can not simply deny that they were Christians.And sure. The Narnia series is one of those things I've returned to about annually since they first came out. In fact, I find myself returning to Lewis increasingly these days.But this is OT and maybe should be carried over to some other thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I do not agree that Hitler was a christian. You can't just say - "I am a christian", without changing. You must be born again, and show the change - Like Saul who became Paul. It is very offensive to me if you associate a nazi with Christ.The slaughter of the Jews goes against everything - yes, EVERYTHING Christ said. Christ himself is Jewish, and the nazis might have said they were christian, but they must meet the definition. Go to http://www.dictionary.com and type in "christian". I kid you not, you will only find the parameters involved.Here they are:- Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
- Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
- Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
- Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
- Showing a loving concern for others; humane.So you see - I will not accept those who merely say "I am christian".Even the hypocrits of Jesus's day touted themselves as holy and just, and what did Christ say about them?Ps. With your logic, according to you - Hitler is in heaven because you say he was a "christian". That means you must also believe he was saved and resides in paradise. This - together with your belief in evolution, leaves me highly dubious about your claimed christianity. You can however, agree with me now, that Christ's teachings differ from this illogic.Christ said that the hypocrits father was "satan". He also said many who will claim to know him he will say to, "I never knew you". Do you agree with this? - If you do, then you will have to see the logic that nazi slaughterers of innocent Jews were not christian. If you disagree, then you are disagreeing with this scripture, which will leave me even more dubious as to your true position.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-29-2004]

How many Christians do you think there are then? I've always thought of it as one of the world's major religions. I guess we can cut the 2 billion down a long way then. It is perhaps really only a minor cult?

Only Christ truly knows. All I know is that you have to meet Christ's teachings. If I say I am a footballer and I've only ever played snooker, am I a footballer?If Hitler slaughtered millions of Jews, and Christ says, "Love you enemy and neighbour" do you think there is an inconsistency? Read this If you think I am just saying this for "true scotsman". I in all honesty - think Loudmouth is more christian than nazi Jew killers ever were.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-29-2004]

BTW, I have totally broken my own rule in message 1. This is off-topic. So now, I have no right to complain.......Are you guys getting it yet?

Mike, Loudmouth,Allow me to yank this topic back on track: Not exactly, Loudmouth. I realise now that I should not have used the term 'induced traits', because it leads to the erroneous perception of mutations happening as the result of a stimulus.Let met make it clear: all mutations are random, none happen as a response to a specific stimulus. What I meant with 'induced' is that the environmental circumstances make it so that some traits turn out to be beneficial while others are neutral or even harmful. Neutral traits may linger in the gene pool for a while, but harmful traits get weeded out pretty quickly, leaving the beneficial traits seemingly 'induced' by the enviromental circumstances.It looks as though the environment stimulates a certain development, whereas in reality that development is simply what's left over from a range of possibilities that have been 'tried out', as it were. Again, I realise that 'induced' (and now 'tried out') seems to imply an agent of some sort, but that is only an effect of using those metaphors. There is no plan to evolution and mutations are not the result of a stimulus. 'Induced traits' are simply those traits that are kept as a result of their success at being passed on, given the circumstances.Note that this last phrase, 'given the circumstances', also indicates that if the circumstances change, a trait may no longer be so successful and disappear.I hope this made my ramblings a bit clearer.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Parasomnium,Thanks for the clarification. It seems that I may have been putting words in your mouth, sorry about that. Mike and I seem to have an affinity for each other at times, so I jumped to help instead of waiting for you to respond. Thanks again.

Ps. With your logic, according to you - Hitler is in heaven because you say he was a "christian". That means you must also believe he was saved and resides in paradise. who are you to judge the salvation of a man? if he was saved then he could be forgiven, no? god keeps his promises while man keeps grudges. if not, no biggie. do you know the names in the book?perhaps he was a christian before (assuming one can't lose salvation) or maybe he had a later repentance. or perhaps he wasn't a christian at all.

Who are you to ignore his deeds?Yeah, yeah, we've heard. Good deeds can't get you into heaven.But should really, really, really bad deeds keep you out, no matter what? I don't care much for a God who says "just drop my name at the door, and they'll let you by." What's the point of the afterlife if it isn't about people getting their just desserts?

But should really, really, really bad deeds keep you out, no matter what? I don't care much for a God who says "just drop my name at the door, and they'll let you by." What's the point of the afterlife if it isn't about people getting their just desserts? i guess that depends on what you think a really really bad deed is. according to the bible, no sin is worse than any other. it is only humans (arguably, in a selfish attempt to imagine oneself as more righteous than another) who gradiate sin. is being responsible for the murder of an entire race worse than lying to your spouse? i don't think so. and besides. there are plenty of races that were entirely (or almost so) wiped out in north america that no one even pays any attention to. for one, the mandans. those that were left were absorbed into other tribes. why? because they had blue eyes and might be confused as being human.then you have the really not-so-bad things. like lying. what if your little lie causes something big and bad and nasty... say you're 'spending the evening' with your significant compatriot and and you lie so your parents won't be angry all over you. but you turn out to be that person's only alibi and he unjustly goes to prison (or worse) for something he didn't do, but you're still afraid that your parents will be mad at you. what then? yes it's a touch (excessively) farfetched, but you get the idea.the only just thing is to assume that all bad things are equally bad and that the only thing that can save someone is a single specified method. there is either light or absence of light. there is no middle. a shadow is touched by ambient light. thus it is in the light.

If your God believes that murdering 3 million Jews isn't measurably worse than stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child, then your God cannot be a moral entity by any standard. I do. And I question your morality if you don't. What if you do the right thing, and a person comes to unjust harm as a result? If you're going to look at results, even good actions can have bad results. You can choose not to steal, but what if a child starves because of it? Of course it isn't. The only just thing is the mature and intelligent realization than no finite moral code can encapsulate every moral situation, and that therefore the only fair response is to examine the harm caused by the infraction.That's the position of moral relativism, and it's the only rational response to the obvious truth that some things are worse than others. Ill-considered analogy on your part: there's obviously shades of light and dark - a continuum of right and wrong.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-24-2004 05:44 AM

What must be remembered is that evolution can proceed a lot faster than was previously thought. The best illustration of this is the Grant's study of Darwin's finches on the Galapogos Islands. They have studied in excess of 19,000 indviduals over 24 generations, and have observed wide evolutionary swings, tracking environmental changes. What has led to to the assumption of a slower rate is that, over time, these environmental changes tend to average out to a norm, so "snapshots" taken at longish intervals miss the changes.So, given a permanent environmental change and a reasonably plastic genetic makeup, a species can "track" these changes.

I am not judging him, I just think he was not a christian. The last time I checked there is a definite difference between judging someone and agreeing/disagreeing on what that person was. I could ofcourse be wrong, but it is irrelevant as I am not judging him anyway.What I am saying is that killing millions of people does NOT meet the definition of christian.