"Eternity"

Originally posted by josephw
We can discover truth by discussing it perhaps?

Yes. Discussion with an open mind rather than an open book.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The soul is the immaterial, immortal essence of man, the real person [as opposed to the body]; its characteristics are self consciousness, mentality, volition and conscience. It's also the center of knowledge in the spiritual life: "... for as he thinks within himself, so he is." Proverbs 23:7a NASB Nobody is coercing anyone to believe anything. We're discussing 'eternity.'

Clearly there is an "essence of man" but you have nothing but your own subjective assertions that it is somehow "immortal". I agree that our each and every human spirit contains what we perceive to be our "characteristics [such as] self consciousness, mentality, volition and conscience [and] also the center of our knowledge". But then you say, "We're discussing 'eternity'". You have not one jot of proof that there is any link whatsoever between our own "essence" [as we experience it during our lives] and the concepts of "eternity" or "immortality". It is akin to a non-sequitur fuelled by your personal religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"Eternity" [First published Fri Jan 20, 2006; substantive revision Thu Feb 4, 2010]

"Concepts of eternity have developed in a way that is, as a matter of fact, closely connected to the development of the concept of God in Western thought, beginning with ancient Greek philosophers; particularly to the idea of God's relation to time, the idea of ...[text shortened]... , then maybe I should think again about temporal vs. eternal issues for my sake and my family's.[/b]

If there is an "eternity", then maybe I should think again about temporal vs. eternal issues for my sake and my family's.

most of the athiests i know (including myself) are horrified at the idea of living for an eternity. there is a finite amount of things to do, given an infinite amount of time to do them, would lead us to a infinite amount of time without anything new, just reliving the same experiences over and over and over.

imagine i locked you in cell with 100 books, nothing else........how long would it be before you would run out of things to do? what would you do then?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Eternity" [First published Fri Jan 20, 2006; substantive revision Thu Feb 4, 2010]

3. The Eternalist View

"So, beginning with Augustine and Boethius, many thinkers have held the view that God exists apart from time, or outside time. He possesses life all at once. But the expression ‘all at once’ is not meant to indicate a moment of tim ...[text shortened]... could God be restricted in this way?" http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/ (to be continued)

"Eternity" [First published Fri Jan 20, 2006; substantive revision Thu Feb 4, 2010]

4. Sources in antiquity

"As noted, Boethius found the source of the idea of eternity which he attributes to God in Plato. In the Timaeus (37E6–38A6) Plato contrasts the eternal forms with the time-bound created world, the world of mutation and becoming, for time was created along with the heaven (38B5), meaning at least that time is the measure of change, and perhaps that it is identical with the movements of the heavenly bodies, a view later critiqued by Augustine (Confessions, Book XI. xxiii) Plato's idea of eternity in the Timaeus seems to be that of timeless duration, for the Forms endure in the temporal order in which ‘time is the moving image of eternity’. It is possible to trace a similar idea of timeless eternity back to Parmenides, though exactly what he means is the subject of scholarly dispute.

While in some places at least Plato connected the necessary character of the Forms, including mathematical objects, to eternity, in Aristotle the connection is between necessity and sempiternity. What is necessary is what exists for all times. What is contingent is what at some time might not be. God, being necessary, is sempiternal. Nevertheless it may be said that the sempiternal is not bounded by time (in a weaker sense than Plato ascribes to the Forms) in that what exists sempiternally cannot age. (Physics 221b30) Philo of Alexandria is reckoned to be the first to ascribe timelessness to God, to the God of the Jewish Scriptures. In Plotinus (ca. 185–254) timeless eternity and life are for the first time identified together. Nous is eternal and beyond time, enjoying duration without succession.

5. Eternality in theology and religion

The importance of Augustine and Boethius for developing the idea of eternality has already been noted. Anselm (c. 1033–1109) presents a similar view.

Suppose, on the other hand, that it exists as a whole in individual times severally and distinctly. (A human being, for instance, exists as a whole yesterday, today and tomorrow.) In this case we should, properly, say that it was, is and will be. In which case its time-span is not simultaneously a whole. Rather it is stretched out in parts through the parts of time. But its time-span is its eternity and its eternity is precisely itself. The supreme essence, therefore, would be cut up into parts along the divisions of time. (Anselm Monologion, Ch. 21)

In the Proslogion, Anselm articulates for the first time a ‘grammar’ of the divine powers, what it makes sense to say of the most perfect being, including that being's timelessness." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/ (to be continued)

Originally posted by FMF
Well, as Grampy Bobby apparently conceded, religious notions of immortality are "a concept that's been discussed for centuries by the intellectuals of their time" and yet such discussions have not conjured 'eternal life' into existence nor has it produced a single shred of evidence from the whole history of mankind of anyone 'living on' in any form after death.

Amazing how far out into left field you can get in one sentence FMF!

Get back to the context in which I posed the question please. I never suggested that discussing truth would cause it to be. That was wolfgang's idea. I merely replied to his comment that truth may be discovered by discussion.

Originally posted by josephw
Amazing how far out into left field you can get in one sentence FMF!

Get back to the context in which I posed the question please. I never suggested that discussing truth would cause it to be. That was wolfgang's idea. I merely replied to his comment that truth may be discovered by discussion.

This post of yours makes no effort whatsoever to address what I said about the relationship between 'discussion' and 'truth'.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yes. Discussion with an open mind rather than an open book.

I would think that an open mind would not fear to look at everything and anything. What harm could come to the truth?

Besides, I don't over work The Book in here. I sometimes make reference to a verse or two to address a specific idea, but I'm not cramming it down anybody's throat.

In fact, I wager that quotations from many other sources are in much greater abundance in this forum than Biblical ones.

Anyway, that brings to mind the concept of authority, and who's it is that is truly reliable. Certainly not mine.

Originally posted by FMF
This post of yours makes no effort whatsoever to address what I said about the relationship between 'discussion' and 'truth'.

Originally posted by FMF
If this stuff that religionists like yourself come up with about these so called "eternal issues" helps you to deal with death and gives your lives some sort of personal meaning or purpose, I think it's OK. What you are going through is a long standing, and in many ways, understandable part of the human condition.

Originally posted by FMF
Not accepting your personal and often repeated claims that you are immortal in some way is not "pettiness", Grampy Bobby. As I said, I think your apparently sincere hope for an "afterlife" of some kind, along with your assertions that there are things we can do during our lives that can affect or produce a continuation of life after death, are an understandable part of the human condition ~ mixing things like fear of theunknown, creativity and imagination, appetite for dogmatism ~ just as they were an understandable part of the human condition for those intellectuals among us who happened to subscribe to similar conjecture over the centuries.

Originally posted by FMF
Well, as Grampy Bobby apparently conceded, religious notions of immortality are "a concept that's been discussed for centuries by the intellectuals of their time" and yet such discussions have not conjured 'eternal life' into existence nor has it produced a single shred of evidence from the whole history of mankind of anyone 'living on' in any form after death.

Originally posted by FMF
Clearly there is an "essence of man" but you have nothing but your own subjective assertions that it is somehow "immortal". I agree that our each and every human spirit contains what we perceive to be our "characteristics [such as] self consciousness, mentality, volition and conscience [and] also the center of our knowledge". But then you say, "We're discussing 'eternity'". You have not one jot of proof that there is any link whatsoever between our own "essence" [as we experience it during our lives] and the concepts of "eternity" or "immortality". It is akin to a non-sequitur fuelled by your personal religious beliefs.

Originally posted by FMF
This post of yours makes no effort whatsoever to address what I said about the relationship between 'discussion' and 'truth'.

Red Hot Pawn Spirituality Forum Thread Topic: "Eternity." Not "stuff that religionists like yourself come up with.";
"Grampy Bobby"; or "a non-sequitur fuelled by your personal religious beliefs." Please stay on topic. Thank you.

Originally posted by FMF
This post of yours makes no effort whatsoever to address what I said about the relationship between 'discussion' and 'truth'.

"Well, as Grampy Bobby apparently conceded, religious notions of immortality are "a concept that's been discussed for centuries by the intellectuals of their time" and yet such discussions have not conjured 'eternal life' into existence nor has it produced a single shred of evidence from the whole history of mankind of anyone 'living on' in any form after death."

Where in the quote above, that I replied to, do you say anything about a relationship between 'discussion' and 'truth'?

The relationship between a 'discussion' and 'truth' was spoken of by wolfgang and myself in another post.

I'm sorry FMF, but I'm losing you here! Seriously, I don't know where you're going what with the way you leap around so much.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
If there is an "eternity", then maybe I should think again about temporal vs. eternal issues for my sake and my family's.

most of the athiests i know (including myself) are horrified at the idea of living for an eternity. there is a finite amount of things to do, given an infinite amount of time to do them, would lead us to a infinite amount of ...[text shortened]... se........how long would it be before you would run out of things to do? what would you do then?[/b]

Originally posted by stellspalfie
"most of the athiests i know (including myself) are horrified at the idea of living for an eternity" What if we have no choice?

Originally posted by josephw
"Well, as Grampy Bobby apparently conceded, religious notions of immortality are "a concept that's been discussed for centuries by the intellectuals of their time" and yet such discussions have not conjured 'eternal life' into existence nor has it produced a single shred of evidence from the whole history of mankind of anyone 'living on' in any form after de ...[text shortened]... you here! Seriously, I don't know where you're going what with the way you leap around so much.

Originally posted by josephw
"Well, as Grampy Bobby apparently conceded, religious notions of immortality are "a concept that's been discussed for centuries by the intellectuals of their time" and yet such discussions have not conjured 'eternal life' into existence nor has it produced a single shred of evidence from the whole history of mankind of anyone 'living on' in any form after death."

Joe, the words in quotation marks attributed to me are from the Original Post.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Red Hot Pawn Spirituality Forum Thread Topic: "Eternity." Not "stuff that religionists like yourself come up with."; "Grampy Bobby"; or "a non-sequitur fuelled by your personal religious beliefs." Please stay on topic. Thank you.[/b]

My posts have been completely on topic. You are simply exhibiting an inability to process disagreement and different perspectives.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by josephw
"Well, as Grampy Bobby apparently conceded, religious notions of immortality are "a concept that's been discussed for centuries by the intellectuals of their time" and yet such discussions have not conjured 'eternal life' into existence nor has it produced a single shred of evidence from the whole history of mankind ...[text shortened]... after death."

Joe, the words in quotation marks attributed to me are from the Original Post.

Bob, I know. FMF used your words, then mixed it up with what was said between me and wolfgang.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
What if we have no choice [about living for an eternity]?

"Living for an eternity" ~ a state/fate for which there has been not even one tiny piece evidence since the dawn of man ~ is the realm of superstition, fantasy-imagination and religiosity. In your case, what could possibly be the point of asking someone who does not share your religious beliefs to imagine having no choice but to share your religious beliefs, other than to promote your religious agenda?

Originally posted by josephw
The relationship between a 'discussion' and 'truth' was spoken of by wolfgang and myself in another post.

wolfgang59 said "It would be lovely if we could create truth just by discussing it." I found this to be wry, especially as posters who spam up threads with copy pastes are quite often averse to genuine "discussion" about the "truths" [or lack of] to be found in those wall-o-texts.