Bacteria

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well, not so much in those terms, but kind of. You see my friend, the universe shall be at harmony, no giving fingers, no throwing water balloons, the issue of universal sovereignty shall have been settled once and for all, no longer shall anyone be able to claim that moral independence from God has proven to be beneficial.

so basically, they would still be the same with the exception that if god really really wanted to kill someone of the 144000, he wouldn't be able to. whereas one of the others would be killable. (if someone would want to)

but basically since nobody wants to kill anyone, they are the same. would be like comparing to identical tomatoes and saying one came from a garden in england and one from a garden in norawy

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so basically, they would still be the same with the exception that if god really really wanted to kill someone of the 144000, he wouldn't be able to. whereas one of the others would be killable. (if someone would want to)

but basically since nobody wants to kill anyone, they are the same. would be like comparing to identical tomatoes and saying one came from a garden in england and one from a garden in norawy

mmm, i dunno, i need to think about whether they are different varieties of the same stock. what makes one tomato differ from another? what makes those who put on immortality different from those who attain to ever lasting life?

Originally posted by jaywill
Badwater, a few days ago you complained that post that I wrote only indicated spiritual shallowness.

Okay, I want you to know that since, I have been waiting to see something of greater spiritual weight to come from you then.

I do not mind someone suggesting that I am shallow. But I am [b]still reading and waiting to see something "deeper" from you.

You're being clocked and timed.[/b]

I had no idea you were josephw.

You'll have to remind me what it was, as I've been quite ill this week.

Originally posted by 667joe
Still, in Genesis god lists a lot of animals, but not bacteria or protozoa. I suggest to you the reason they are not listed is because the bible is the work of humans and (non existent ) god had nothing to do with it. If man had known about the existence of earth's most prevalent life form, it would have been included in the bible along with rules for dealing with bacteria.

This must be the weakest reasoning for the non-existance of God I've ever read. The strange thing is that you must have read the entire Bible in order to adopt this stance; talk about missing the point.

Originally posted by divegeester
This must be the weakest reasoning for the non-existance of God I've ever read. The strange thing is that you must have read the entire Bible in order to adopt this stance; talk about missing the point.

Wrong on both points! The bible does not list the theory of relativity either, and I am very confident of this statement without having read the entire bible. So much for your line of reasoning.

Originally posted by 667joe
Wrong on both points! The bible does not list the theory of relativity either, and I am very confident of this statement without having read the entire bible. So much for your line of reasoning.

you know why is that? because it isn't about physics.

the theory of relativity isn't listed in darwin's origin of species either. neither is in newton's works. yet you don't moan about it.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you know why is that? because it isn't about physics.

the theory of relativity isn't listed in darwin's origin of species either. neither is in newton's works. yet you don't moan about it.

I would be a fool!

Originally posted by 667joe
I would be a fool!

and you aren't a fool now when you complain about a book of morals not having a complete and sound theory on bacterias?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
and you aren't a fool now when you complain about a book of morals not having a complete and sound theory on bacterias?

I did not complain that it was not there. I merely pointed out that it was not there which is not surprising. I am just saying don't you think it's odd that the book that explains the creation of the universe really does not explain anything about it at all yet people believe the hogwash to be true even though if you ask them what's true, they don't have a clue.

Originally posted by 667joe
I did not complain that it was not there. I merely pointed out that it was not there which is not surprising. I am just saying don't you think it's odd that the book that explains the creation of the universe really does not explain anything about it at all yet people believe the hogwash to be true even though if you ask them what's true, they don't have a clue.

the book "explains" the creation of the universe as an introductory note to god's awesomeness. that is why the earth is done in 7 days, to begin with the moral issues. there was no bacteria, there was no quantum physics or advanced mathematics, only "god made the world in 7 days, this is how awesome he is, now let's get to the point were humans screwed up because they are stupid/bad/disobedient"


not to mention that there are several books that explain several aspects of the universe. but you don't see dawkins talk about quantum physics or nietzsche solving complex equations or einstein giving lectures about heart transplants