"Eternity"

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Napoleon is dead. You know that, RJHinds didn't know that. Who deserves the title of Genius better? You or he?

LOL! He can have it. I am not in the least concerned who can wear the hat "Brilliant Genius".

Now ask something good before I get into preaching mode again.
I don't stay like this long, Lord knows.

Originally posted by sonship
LOL! He can have it. I am not in the least concerned who can wear the hat "Brilliant Genius".

Now ask something good before I get into preaching mode again.
I don't stay like this long, Lord knows.

What I really wanted to know is the following:

If eternal life is real, then death is unimportant. If we never die, then life is worth nothing. Why being sentenced by murder when life persists for ever?

Napoleon is dead. Stone dead. Then his soul is of no importance to us anymore. Why bother at all? We will never know what happened to his soul. We don't even know if we have a soul. And if we do, we don't know anything about it. And if someone knows anything it is disputed by another who equally knows something else. Who knows for sure? Noone.

So it's just a saying: Eternal life. Nothing more. When we die, we die.

That's my point.

(I thought of asking if Elvis is dead or not. But some actually believe he still is alive, so this example would draw the attention elsewhere.)

You know that Napoleon is dead. RJHinds does not know. That says a lot.

Don't go into preaching mode, please... 🙂

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What I really wanted to know is the following:

If eternal life is real, then death is unimportant. If we never die, then life is worth nothing. Why being sentenced by murder when life persists for ever?

Napoleon is dead. Stone dead. Then his soul is of no importance to us anymore. Why bother at all? We will never know what happened to his soul. We d ...[text shortened]... n is dead. RJHinds does not know. That says a lot.

Don't go into preaching mode, please... 🙂

I wouldn't rely on that, if we live in a universe where Boltzmann Brains are possible then we will all come back an infinite number of times in total chaos.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What I really wanted to know is the following:

If eternal life is real, then death is unimportant. If we never die, then life is worth nothing. Why being sentenced by murder when life persists for ever?

Napoleon is dead. Stone dead. Then his soul is of no importance to us anymore. Why bother at all? We will never know what happened to his soul. We d ...[text shortened]... n is dead. RJHinds does not know. That says a lot.

Don't go into preaching mode, please... 🙂

What I really wanted to know is the following:

If eternal life is real, then death is unimportant. If we never die, then life is worth nothing. Why being sentenced by murder when life persists for ever?

Death is a reality. Whether you want to argue about its importance or unimportance, death is a reality.

Death is call "the last enemy" to God by the Apostle Paul. Now God has a number of enemies. Death is called the LAST enemy.

"Death, the last enemy, is being abolished." ( 1 Cor. 15:26)

Before death is totally abolished from this universe by God it does have its uses to Him in the carrying out of His eternal purpose. When its importance has fulfilled all of its function, death is said to be cast into something like God's eternal trash can where all things useless to Him wind up.

Death, after God has used up all of whatever usefulness death had for Him, it will be tossed into an eternal trash can. That is called "the second death" .

I realize that this is kind of tricky. But in words which we humans can understand, God has communicated to us that death, having served its purpose, will be eradicated and disposed of in God's eternal trash can.

We need to be saved from that eternal trash can by salvation in Jesus Christ.

Napoleon is dead. Stone dead. Then his soul is of no importance to us anymore.

Yes, Napolean is dead. And if (God forbid ) you were to die this evening, YOU, FabianFnas would realize to your shock this:

"My God! I am DEAD yet I still EXIST !! Why didn't anyone tell me about this ??"

Yes, there is death and existence IN death until resurrection.
That has some use to God. If not to you it has use, it has use to the Governor and King of all creation.

It is USEFUL to God to keep immaterial souls in one of His other realms for a period of time. It serves His purposes. You cannot say because it serves man no purpose therefore it serves no purpose.

For example - DEATH served God's purpose to demonstrate that though man cannot overcome this greatest of powers - DEATH, His Son Jesus Christ can.

So He taught "I am the resurrection and the life ..." (John 11:25)

Why bother at all? We will never know what happened to his soul.

We know enough. If we believe the Bible, we DO KNOW SOMETHING. We certainly do not know exhaustively. But we do know something. That is unless you do not trust the Bible and do not trust Jesus Christ.

In that case you are still guessing and do not really know.
And I would also say you are gambling.

Your best bet is the believe the limited yet adequate revelation we have from Christ. What God WANTS us to know, He has told us.

We may be curious about much much more. But we don't know exhaustively all that we are curious about. We know what God wants us to know about death. And better still we know that Christ overcame death, conquered death, vanquish death.

Your best bet is the believe that Jesus Christ went INTO that realm and came out with the "keys" of death.

" ... And He placed His right hand on me, saying, Do not fear; I am the First and the Last and the living One; and I became dead and behold, I am living forever and ever; and I have the keys of death and of Hades." (Rev. 1:17b,18)

There is a Man who went into death's hotel (so-to-speak) and came out again with the "keys" of death. He can release every human being who has died from that realm, and assign to them a destiny afterwards.

We don't even know if we have a soul. And if we do, we don't know anything about it. And if someone knows anything it is disputed by another who equally knows something else. Who knows for sure? Noone.

So it's just a saying: Eternal life. Nothing more. When we die, we die.

That's my point.

You cannot be so sure about that.

One practical use of DEATH is that over the centuries the number of people whom God wants to co-reign with Jesus is accumulating. Since it is a minority it requires time for God to build up the number of those sufficient to reign over the planet as co-kings with Jesus in His second coming.

Since this co-reigning is a reward and not automatic, it is based on the quality the Christian live lived rather than the quantity of Christians who HAVE lived.

So through each successive century those consecrated and very faithful to live through Christ, died in their faith. The New Testament says they are sleeping. But the number of those Christians with a sufficient quality of living God builds up until He has the number needed to reign with Jesus over the globe.

The place of Hades for the immaterial souls has this practical function. It is like a waiting area for the next age immediately following this age.

Now I never died physically. Neither you nor anyone else participating. I neither would put much trust in the hype of people claiming to have died and come back.

Jesus Christ is different. To me His integrity is beyond questioning. He has told us about this death matter and Hades the holding place of the dead and those Christians "sleeping" in physical death.

I choose to believe His words and His demonstration that He died and ROSE from its realm in human history. It is believable to me that a Man like Jesus Christ could die and rise again.

With any and everyone else it is not very believable. With Jesus Christ it is credible. Such an event would perfectly match the power of His personality, His words, and His other acts of miraculous power granted Him by the Father.

(I thought of asking if Elvis is dead or not. But some actually believe he still is alive, so this example would draw the attention elsewhere.)

That Elvis overcame death is not likely to me. The power of the life and words and deeds of Elvis the Rock-and-Roll performer do not encourage me that escape from death matches who he was.

Not even Houdini the magician so impresses me as a likely candidate to overcome physical death.

Jesus of Nazareth - His personality, teaching, signs, and backround origin seem entirely consistent with the claim that DEATH could not hold Him.

What is plausible concerning Jesus is not as plausible for other figures in history, though they be somewhat impressive for something, even if entertainment of teenagers.

Elvis is not in the same class as Jesus. In fact I would say your best bet is to realize that Jesus is in a class ALL His own.

You know that Napoleon is dead. RJHinds does not know. That says a lot.

Don't go into preaching mode, please...

Nay, But I will preach.

Originally posted by sonship

What I really wanted to know is the following:

If eternal life is real, then death is unimportant. If we never die, then life is worth nothing. Why being sentenced by murder when life persists for ever?

Death is a reality. Whether you want to argue about its importance or unimportance, [b]death is a reality.

Death is call ...[text shortened]... That says a lot.

Don't go into preaching mode, please... [/quote]

Nay, But I will preach.[/b]

sonship, if that post was half its length it would still be too long to read. I sometimes make over-long posts, but not on that scale.

Originally posted by DeepThought
sonship, if that post was half its length it would still be too long to read. I sometimes make over-long posts, but not on that scale.

There are two ways I could spend time. I could write a brief chit chat two or three line answer. And then respond to several chat like remarks which assumed that I didn't consider something.

Or I can preemptively include some of those expected issues in my post, though it makes it a bit longer.

I chose the latter. Sure I could reduce my reply to three lines. And the reply would be something like

"But why?
How?
How's that work?
That makes no sense.
You didn't think of this problem?
But you overlooked that?
etc. "

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[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 ...[text shortened]... se........how long would it be before you would run out of things to do? what would you do then?[/b]

God's perfect happiness doesn't depend on emotion; His happiness is an essential part of His character. God focuses His infinite mentality [omniscience] on everything at once and is not subject to the mood swings and emotional variations we experience. God is immutable which means He never changes, unlike us (our family members and friends). In eternity believers in Christ will share in the perfect happiness of God and whatever work and recreation He has already prepared.

Originally posted by PatNovak
If Bobby only had 100 books and nothing else in his cell, he would run out of things to do instantaneously, because what good would books do him if he didn't have any means to copy and paste from them? At least give the man scissors and glue so he can go old school. Your scenario sounds like Bobby's version of Hell.

Pat, pleases see my reply to stellspalfie on page five. Also, remember this certainty: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; Hebrews 9:27. Bobby's looking forward with great expectation to having a ball in heaven.

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

6. Medieval thinkers

"It is in the medieval period that discussion of eternity embraces not only Christian but Jewish and Islamic thinkers, often in controversy among themselves. In keeping with the sharp line drawn between the Creator and all tha ...[text shortened]... temporal position. (McTaggart, 1908)" http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/ (to be continued)

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

7.1 Eternalism

"Laying aside theological arguments drawn from Scripture, the central argument for eternalism derives from a consideration of the implications of divine fullness and perfection. A number of contemporary thinkers such as Paul Helm, in Eternal God, and Katherin Rogers, in Perfect Being Theology, argue that for God, who exists timelessly, the temporal order is a B-series, all times being equally present to his mind. On the eternalist view of creation, God creates the universe as a temporally ordered B-series, according to which every event in that universe is, tenselessly, either before, after or simultaneous with every other event in the universe. But God is in no temporal relation to this B series, not even in the tenseless relation that, according to the B theory, any event in the universe is to any other event in it. How does thinking of time as a B-series help in our understanding of creation by a timeless God? On that view, as we have seen..."

7.2 Temporalism

"Temporalist views largely rest on the supposed adverse consequences of eternalism, though some theological views e.g. process thought, or Hegelian historicism, must reject eternalism as a matter of theological definition. Temporalism regards God as existing in a temporal sequences having the characteristics of an A-series, God being situated at a particular moment in time, the present, and having a past and a future. However, temporalism is compatible with a range of A-series views. For example, a temporalist may hold that only the present is real, or that past and present are each real, though it would be less common to hold that past, present and future are all equally real. Several philosophical arguments for temporalism may be identified. First, that eternalism depends upon a demonstrably false view of time, the B-series view. Were it the case..." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/ (to be continued) Note: Partial quote due excessive length of these sub points.

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

7.1 Eternalism

"Laying aside theological arguments drawn from Scripture, the central argument for eternalism derives from a consideration of the implications of divine fullness and perfection. A number of contemporary thinkers such as Paul Helm, in Etern ...[text shortened]... du/entries/eternity/ (to be continued) Note: Partial quote due excessive length of these sub points.

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

8. A basic difference

"We might interpret the words of Sir Anthony Kenny, discussed earlier, in a different way, not as providing a straightforward demonstration of the absurdity of divine timeless eternity, but as issuing a challenge to anyone who is tempted to uphold the idea of divine eternality. The challenge is to say clearly what divine timeless eternity is like. If it does not have elements of temporal duration, and so does not have the absurd consequences which Kenny suggests, then what exactly is divine timeless eternity? What is the life of the timelessly eternal God like? What is God's experience of the temporal universe like?

As we saw in the case of Aquinas, it is natural and warranted by the nature of things to exercise a little caution in attempting to speak about the very nature of God. How could minds fashioned to function in space and time come to understand the nature of the one who allegedly exists outside space and time?

It is true that we can gain some positive understanding by the use of analogies. For instance it has been said that the relation between God and time is like that between the centre of a circle and its circumference. The relation of the centre of the circle to one point on its circumference is exactly similar to its relation to any other point on it. Another analogy is that between God's eternal vision and someone at the summit of a hill taking in at a glance what is taking place beneath her. But the hilltop analogy (which Boethius was the first to use) has been shown to be, strictly speaking, unsatisfactory. For the person at the summit is herself in time. And the idea of God as the centre of a circle with time being represented by the circumference is also defective because of the temporal order is linear and not circular. So these analogies remain, as all analogies do, rather unsatisfactory if offered as explanations. Others have been much more reserved in the use of analogies, even skeptical about their usefulness. So Augustine toys with the idea that God's atemporal knowledge of events in time is like the voice producing a sequence of sounds as it recites a familiar psalm. But ‘You know them (viz. the sequence of sounds) in a much more wonderful and much more mysterious way’. (Augustine Confessions, XI. xxxi.)

Augustine hints that it is not a reasonable requirement for a satisfactory articulation of a doctrine such as timeless eternality that one must be able accurately to describe what it is like to be timeless. Part of what it means to say that God is incomprehensible, ‘mysterious', is to recognize that even if we say that God is timeless we do not and cannot have a straightforward understanding of what his timeless life is, or of what it is like to be timeless."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/ (to be continued)

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

8. A basic difference

"We might interpret the words of Sir Anthony Kenny, discussed earlier, in a different way, not as providing a straightforward demonstration of the absurdity of divine timeless eternity, but as issuing a challenge to anyone who is te ...[text shortened]... r of what it is like to be timeless."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/ (to be continued)

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

9. Other issues

"This article has concentrated on eternity as a metaphysical notion with two contrasting understandings. But besides this central metaphysical use there is also a sense in which certain sentences are timeless. For example, sentences which express necessary truths or falsehoods, or certain matters which are true by definition or essential. In saying that copper is a metal, or that the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles, there is no implicit contrast to a time when what is asserted was not true or false. Here it is best to distinguish between the terms ‘tensed’ and ‘tenseless’, properties of sentences, and ‘timeless’ and ‘temporal’, properties of individuals and events

Bibliography:

Anselm, The Monologion, trans. Simon Harrison, in Anselm of Canterbury, The Major Works, Edited with an Introduction by Brian Davies and G. R. Evans (Oxford, Oxford University Press), 1998.
Augustine, The Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick (Oxford, Oxford University Press), 1991.
Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, trans. V.E. Watts (London, Penguin Books), 1969.
Burrell, David, 1986, Knowing the Unknowable God (Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press.
Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. F.L. Battles (London, S.C.M. 1960)
Craig, William, 1998, ‘The Tensed vs. Tenseless Theory of Time: A Watershed for the Conception of Divine Eternity’, in Questions of Time and Tense ed. Robin Le Poidevin, (Oxford, Clarendon Press), pp. 221–250.
Craig, William, 2001, Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time (Wheaton, Ill. Crossway Books).
Cross, Richard, 2005, Duns Scotus on God (Aldershot, Hants., Ashgate).
DeWeese, Garrett J., 2004, God and the Nature of Time (Aldershot, Hants., Ashgate).
Ganssle, Gregory E. and Woodruff, David M., eds., 2002, God and Time (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
Halbertal, M. and Margalit, A, Idolatry (Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, 1992)
Helm, Paul, 1988, Eternal God (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Kenny, Anthony, 1979, The God of the Philosophers (Oxford, Clarendon Press).
Leftow, Brian, 1991, Time and Eternity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
Lucas. J.R., 1989, The Future (Oxford: Blackwell).
McTaggart, J.M.E., 1908, ‘The Unreality of Time’, Mind 17: 456–473.
Maimonides, M., The Guide of the Perplexed trans. with an intro. by Shlomo Pines, with an Introductory Essay by Leo Strauss (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press), 1963.
Pike, Nelson, 1970, God and Timelessness (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul).
Rogers, Katherin A., 1994, ‘Eternity has no Duration’, Religious Studies 30: 1–16.
Rogers, Katherin A., 2008, Anselm on Freedom (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008).
Rogers, Katherin A., 2000, Perfect Being Theology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
Sorabji, Richard, 1984, Time, Creation and the Continuum: Theories in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (London: Duckworth).
Stump, Eleonore and Kretzmann, Norman, 1981, ‘Eternity’, Journal of Philosophy 78(8): 429–458.
Swinburne, Richard, 1977, The Coherence of Theism (Oxford, Clarendon Press).
Swinburne, Richard, 1994, The Christian God (Oxford, Clarendon Press).
Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 1975, ‘God Everlasting’ in God and the Good: Essays in Honor of Henry Stob, edd. Clifton Orlebeke and Lewis Smedes (Grand Rapids, Mich. Eerdmans), pp. 181–203." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/

__________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by sonship
There are two ways I could spend time. I could write a brief chit chat two or three line answer. And then respond to several chat like remarks which assumed that I didn't consider something.

Or I can preemptively include some of those expected issues in my post, though it makes it a bit longer.

I chose the latter. Sure I could reduce my reply to th ...[text shortened]...
That makes no sense.
You didn't think of this problem?
But you overlooked that?
etc. "

I understand the dilemma. The post doesn't have to be only one or two lines long. A couple of paragraphs probably represents a happy medium. The danger with making a post that long is that people just won't read it.

I can preemptively include some of those expected issues in my post

I used to do that, I think it is better not to argue with oneself.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I understand the dilemma. The post doesn't have to be only one or two lines long. A couple of paragraphs probably represents a happy medium. The danger with making a post that long is that people just won't read it.

I can preemptively include some of those expected issues in my post

I used to do that, I think it is better not to argue with oneself.

Let's see how well then you understood.

What did I write is one of uses of death to God ?

Originally posted by PatNovak
Eternity (n.) – The amount of time required to get Grampy Bobby to engage in debate.

Pat, if you have a question regarding the topic of "Eternity" or any other topic please feel free to spell it out.

Originally posted by josephw
I'd like to express this simple idea about what eternity means to me. It's like comprehending infinity. I know what it means, but I can't grasp it. Not yet anyway!

Simply put, eternity is the never ending 'now'. I think! That is, if eternity has anything to do with time.

The word eternity occurs once in the KJV. It appears that eternity is the place G ...[text shortened]... humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

One of the most insightful and honest on topic statements made so far: "I'd like to express this simple idea about what eternity means to me. It's like comprehending infinity. I know what it means, but I can't grasp it. Not yet anyway!" Thanks.