​​​​​​​“ …. Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, what God has in store for those that love him …. “

[Pudgy]

1 minute ago, Peter Carroll said:

there is only one universe or else the ranson would need to be repeated over and over again this is common sense,a rare thing around here

 

…. Not if those paid better attention than Adam and Eve did. 

[Pudgy]

This is a poem by the advertising giant Rosser Reeves, circa 1960, who is famous for inventing the slogan for Mars Candy, “M&M’s … melt in your mouth, not in your hand”.

INFINITY

 

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, Peter Carroll said:

there is only one universe or else the ranson would need to be repeated over and over again this is common sense,a rare thing around here

 

@Thinking mentions two separate laws in the universe. One for angels in heaven, the other for people on this planet.
If we go this way of thinking, then the logic of one sacrifice of Christ for the whole Universe should not be the final thesis. God can create various forms of life according to different criteria or laws of existence and interaction.
Well on the this planet itself there is a visible difference about different laws in one place. God gave to  animal species to devour each other, even within the same species. It is a "law" for them. But we do not see that it is permissible for a man to eat a man.

If the existence of different laws is present on only one planet, why should we be limited by the idea of one Universal Sacrifice that arose because of one situation on Earth?
In addition, if there is another civilization that was created by the creative act of one and the same Creator, this Earth civilization does not know about the other and vice versa, so the idea of applying Christ's sacrifice for unknown civilization somewhere in space is unclear.

If another civilization was created with a different (or even same) intention, purpose or idea of the Creator, I don't see sense in the universality of Christ’s sacrifice. Jesus came on this planet for this humankind for one act of Adam and Eve in the past. 

[Arauna]

9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

hen the logic of one sacrifice of Christ for the whole Universe should not be the final thesis.

I do not agree. The THEORY of multiple universes is to give the evolutionists a way out of their conundrums.  The current theories do not give enough time for evolution to develop the complexity of life we see... so multiple universes give more opportunities for evolutionary "chances" to bring about life.  I did not make this clear in my comment above and some here  just assumed I believe in multi universes.  No this is not possible - math is not reality but a language tool (as I said).

No matter how many dimensions there are in this universe - if there was perfect (moral) life in another part of it - then Jehovah need not have sent Jesus to die for us.  An angel became wicked (Satan) and a human became disobedient...so it is already an universal issue. Jesus is the ONLY perfect one from both realms (the invisible and born in the visible), whom Jehovah could use to provide the ransom. Other perfect angels could have come but they did not fit the bill.  Jesus was the only one directly created by Jehovah and Satan could have made the allegation that he has too much of a perfect life - as he did with Job.

There are no other moral beings in other places, except the angels and humans.  Our animals cannot think morally because we are the crown of Jehovah's creation.  Animals, insects and other forms of lower life, even apes,  cannot appreciate beauty or look far into the future like humans can or distinguish right from wrong. 

If there were no humans on earth to appreciate the beauty and generosity around them - then it would be as if the earth did not exist in a conscious moral way. Animals could not appreciate this earth. They merely act on instinct and survival.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

@Thinking mentions two separate laws in the universe. One for angels in heaven, the other for people on this planet.
If we go this way of thinking, then the logic of one sacrifice of Christ for the whole Universe should not be the final thesis. God can create various forms of life according to different criteria or laws of existence and interaction.
Well on the this planet itself there is a visible difference about different laws in one place. God gave to  animal species to devour each other, even within the same species. It is a "law" for them. But we do not see that it is permissible for a man to eat a man.

If the existence of different laws is present on only one planet, why should we be limited by the idea of one Universal Sacrifice that arose because of one situation on Earth?
In addition, if there is another civilization that was created by the creative act of one and the same Creator, this Earth civilization does not know about the other and vice versa, so the idea of applying Christ's sacrifice for unknown civilization somewhere in space is unclear.

If another civilization was created with a different (or even same) intention, purpose or idea of the Creator, I don't see sense in the universality of Christ’s sacrifice. Jesus came on this planet for this humankind for one act of Adam and Eve in the past. 

Your all over the place sereko…you really do need to have a sit down with structured bible discussion and it’s okay if you dont agree with everything.

Christ was sacrificed  for mankind alone….not for the angels..yes both species were perfect….but the angels had much more understanding and their rebellion was a deliberate one done  with much more knowledge than Adam and Eve ever had….they held court with Jehovah over probably  eons of time before mankind was created…they knew full well what they were doing.

Animals we’re not meant to eat each other at all by Gods law.

neither were men meant to eat each other by Gods law…..this is basic bible understanding…..so who is teaching you or are you just pulling everybody’s chain here….you must be a Russian spy I reckon!….

 

 

[Pudgy]

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

 ….. If there were no humans on earth to appreciate the beauty and generosity around them - then it would be as if the earth did not exist in a conscious moral way. Animals could not appreciate this earth. They merely act on instinct not appreciate 

When you make statements like this, you lose credibility for your previous statements, at least among all of us who have seen the great joy animals have playing with each other and living their lives.

I suggest you go to a store someplace where there is a box of puppies and observe them.

For over a half a century I have directly observed animals of all sorts that are very happy, and obviously so, all day every day and they enjoy their lives.

To the best of my knowledge, your knowledge, or anybody’s knowledge alligators may be the world’s best mathematicians, and we would never know it.

[Pudgy]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

……. Animals we’re not meant to eat each other at all …..

HaHAHHAHAAAAAHAHAHAH!

You are obviously getting your theology from the movie “The Lion King”, or Disney cartoons, where they dance and sing, and there is an orchestra in the background.

Ever look at the teeth of a T-Rex?

or the teeth of a shark?

THINK!!!!

 

[Arauna]

28 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

You are obviously getting your theology from the movie

She was speaking of God: he may have  originally created them for a different purpose.  There may have been animals that were created only to be carrion eaters. ... to clean up the animals that have died.

For example - most group animals are usually herbivores.  It has now come out that the Rex moved in groups (groups of tracks were found). Their eyes are more to the side like a cow..... not a predator which has eyes which look straight ahead at its prey.  Its front arms are short...so how can it hang onto its prey- or push it down.  

It came out recently that there were floating islands of trees on the seas.....massive  floating islands of hollow trees like bamboo.  Who says some dinosaurs were not the sea monsters / birds that lived on these islands?   There is way to little knowledge about these animals and there is much conjecture about how they lived.  Many of the dinosaurs have hollow bones like birds.  Many of these floating islands landed up on land during the flood and became coal deposits.  They have found the bark of these hollow trees in coal deposits.

 

[Arauna]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

over a half a century I have directly observed animals

You forget I come from Africa and in my 70th year.  I also observed animals - not just puppy at that.

 

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

When you make statements like this, you lose credibility for your previous statements

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

If there were no humans on earth to appreciate the beauty and generosity around them - then it would be as if the earth did not exist in a conscious moral way. Animals could not appreciate this earth. They merely act on instinct n

This is a statement which came from one of Hawkins books - these evolutionists always give themselves away.  At the end of his most popular book he said this.  So I suggest you re-think again .  You are the one telling others to think when you have not mastered it yet...... to satirize is your forte - not the art of thinking.

[Srecko Sostar]

45 minutes ago, Arauna said:

not a predator which has eyes which look straight ahead at its prey.

[Pudgy]

…..

…. Be careful Howyou quote someone, or you may end up like Dmitar….. details are important!

[Pudgy]

Oh! And apparently some sharks were vegetarian ……