What is the religious definition of eternity?

[Sha'irullah]

Hmm can you elaborate further in how eternity has a fixed point? Are you referring to eternity as a matter of succession?

Yep, eternity is defined as without end, the issue is that people tack on "without beginning" unjustly. Eternity is everlasting but this is almost always conflated with infinite.
The word it derives from which is aevum means without age but age is not equivalent to time.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Yep, eternity is defined as without end, the issue is that people tack on "without beginning" unjustly. Eternity is everlasting but this is almost always conflated with infinite.

I see...

 

[Katzpur]

Because these are not literal expressions. Even when I was a child I understood things like "the hand of God", to mean a representation of power. Not fingers and a palm and a wrist.

I would agree with you 100% that "the hand of God" means "God's power" and not "God's fingers, palm and wrist." That is just one example, though, and I never said that every single such instance is meant to be understood literally.

It's a representation of the nature of God.

I agree that this is part of it. It's just not all of it.

"She is the image of purity and refinement". Does purity have a physical body?

No, purity does not have a physical body. But if you were to describe a prostitute hanging out on a street corner looking for business as being "the image of purity and refinement," I would certainly question your judgment. And why would that be? It would be because her appearance would not be that of someone who was pure and refined. If a woman is the image of purity and refinement, it means she looks to be that kind of a person.

If being created in the image of God means we look like God physically, then why don't we all look identical? Why are some black? Why do some have olive skin? Why do some have green eyes? Why are some women? Why are some men? You see the sorts of problems you get into trying to make this fit some theology?

I see no problems whatsoever. I never said we were all clones of God. I said we were created "in his image, after his likeness."

I believe that when God said He was going to create us in His image, He was speaking of the human form as opposed to some other form. If you look at the context of the statement (in Genesis 1:24-26), my perspective makes total sense.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."

These verses are describing the physical creation of life on this earth. They state very specifically that God created all forms of animal life and gave them the ability to reproduce after their own kind. Without skipping a beat, they continue by stating that God created man in His own image, after his likeness.

Just four chapters later (in Genesis 5:3), we read the following:

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth."

The verbiage is virtually identical. Just as God created man in His image, after His likeness, Adam begat a son in his image, after his likeness. I've never heard anybody try to tell me that this verse (Genesis 5:3) means anything other than that Adam had a son who resembled him. Just as dogs have puppies and cats have kittens, human beings also produce after their own kind. God just started the process by creating man in His image and likeness.[/quote]

Physical most certainly is not its "only" meaning. Someone can embody love, without love being a corporeal being that you swallowed and it now lives in your stomach.

But we're not talking about the word "embody." We're talking about the word "image."

No, I can respect differences in belief just fine.

It would be nice if you would make the effort to respect mine, then. I'm not asking that you agree with me, but when I have gone to the trouble of explaining the logic behind what I believe, I really don't like being told that my beliefs are "silliness."

I reserve the word silly for things which are irrational and fly in the face of what is common sense in language use. None of those make more sense taken literally.

Of course they do, some more so than others. I have already explained the usage of the word "image" in two chapters of Genesis. With virtually identical wording ("in our image and after our likeness") in both instances, and the second instance (Adam begetting Seth) clearly referencing the fact that Adam had a son who was like him in form, it is not at all irrational to believe that the word was intended to mean exactly the same thing in the first instance.

Consider, too, Exodus 33:11, which states,"And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." How could God have possibly made it more clear that this verse should not be interpreted figuratively? Just for the sake of argument, if God were a physical being who spoke face to face with Moses, just as two friends converse face to face, how much more straightforward could He have been in saying so? I know you don't believe God has a body, but seriously, if such a direct statement doesn't convince you, I guess nothing could.

In the New Testament we have Hebrews 1:3, telling us that Jesus is "the express image of [the Father's] person." Not only do we have the word "image," but we have the word "person." Surely, if this statement meant something other than what it plainly states, there would have been a much less pointed way of putting it. And in John 14:9, when Philip tells Jesus that if He'll show them (i.e. the Apostles) the Father, they'll be satisfied, Jesus responds by saying, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" Philip wasn't asking Jesus to tell them about the Father, but to show them the Father. He wanted to see the Father, and Jesus pointed out that since they'd seen Him, they should be satisfied, knowing that He was "the express image" of the Father.

Consider Stephen, who (in Acts 7:55-56) "looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." Anyone who believes that Stephen actually saw what He claimed to have seen would have to admit that there were two physically distinct beings, whose physical proximity to each other was clear to Stephen. He didn't just see Jesus surrounded by light. He saw Him standing to the right of the Father.

I've made a good case for my beliefs, which are no "sillier" than anybody else's and which are, as I've demonstrated, entirely in line with what the Bible says -- even if they are not what you believe.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I see...

A good way to think of it is this way:

We have eternal souls but they had a beginning so are not infinite.
God is infinite so He is has no beginning and no end.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

A good way to think of it is this way:

We have eternal souls but they had a beginning so are not infinite.
God is infinite so He is has no beginning and no end.

Well, one could argue that our souls are infinite which never had a beginning and were in a state of "stasis" until the development of our finite bodies. But of course people of faith would argue that there was nothing that was co-infinite with God.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, one could argue that our souls are infinite which never had a beginning and were in a state of "stasis" until the development of our finite bodies. But of course people of faith would argue that there was nothing that was co-infinite with God.

I was simply using an example to illustrate the differences.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I was simply using an example to illustrate the differences.

I'm sorry...Your last point made sense however.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm sorry...Your last point made sense however.

No need to apologize.

 

[Katzpur]

Well, one could argue that our souls are infinite which never had a beginning and were in a state of "stasis" until the development of our finite bodies. But of course people of faith would argue that there was nothing that was co-infinite with God.

Not all people of faith would. Mormons believe that God created our spirits, but that the "raw material" (for lack of a better way of putting it) He used to do so was the highly refined matter best described as "light and truth." We believe light and truth to be co-infinite with God, and that this light and truth are what our spirits are made of. Yeah, I know... we're the only Christians that I know of who believe this to be the case. Along similar lines, we don't believe in an ex nihilo creation either.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Not all people of faith would. Mormons believe that God created our spirits, but that the "raw material" (for lack of a better way of putting it) He used to do so was the highly refined matter best described as "light and truth." We believe light and truth to be co-infinite with God, and that this light and truth are what our spirits are made of. Yeah, I know... we're the only Christians that I know of who believe this to be the case. Along similar lines, we don't believe in an ex nihilo creation either.

That means the spirit still had a beginning, it is just that the particulars didn't.

 

[Katzpur]

That means the spirit still had a beginning, it is just that the particulars didn't.

Yes, that would be the case.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Yes, that would be the case.

Interesting....So light and truth....

Now my next question is what is light and truth?

 

[Katzpur]

Interesting....So light and truth....

Now my next question is what is light and truth?

Actually, it's kind of a difficult concept for me to try to put into words, but essentially it's what we believe to be a form of conscious self-existence which predated the creation of our spirits. It's the real eternal part of man and is something that can't be created or made. (I really suck at explaining concepts like this. Sorry.)

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Actually, it's kind of a difficult concept for me to try to put into words, but essentially it's what we believe to be a form of conscious self-existence which predated the creation of our spirits. It's the real eternal part of man and is something that can't be created or made. (I really suck at explaining concepts like this. Sorry.)

No. I get it. I was just curious

 

[idea]

Interesting....So light and truth....

Now my next question is what is light and truth?

Good to see you chatting with Katz!

There is quite a bit of debate/discussion among Mormons on the following:

link -
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.


Many different opinions out there on what the process of "adoption" was, and what "intelligence" is (I personally think it was similar to the baptism we have here, that it was a process of covenants) I think "adoption" is the right word for it though -

• Romans 8:15
  
  15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

I think everything is eternal, at least that's the laws of thermo - you don't get something from nothing. We change form, but we have always existed, and will always exist... just like matter/energy have always existed, so has intelligence/spirit/life/light/truth - call it what you will.

a few others share this eternal view too...

Hebrew Root Word Studies
[SIZE=+1]Child Root (Branches of the Tree)[/SIZE]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia] Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foreign concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for. [/FONT]

see also,
God is not the Creator, claims academic - Telegraph

etc. etc.

The "King Follett Sermon" is the famous one that talks about what eternity is - link
scroll down to:

Meaning of the Word Create

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

...
The King Follett Sermon - Ensign May 1971 - ensign
...
the soul—the mind of man —the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: ....
We say that God Himself is a self-existing being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says, “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.”
The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth.
I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. ...That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.
I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man—on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.
Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.
The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.

 

[Sha'irullah]

My primary issue here is how the usage of eternity and infinite are being through out here. Infinite is equivalent to 0 in most regards so the concept that a infinite soul existed before time to enter time is something that baffles me. Much of the philosophical and for the greater part scientific arguments going on here are seriously failing considering that if the soul has an infinite existence it would not exist at all.

Infinite regress, look it up.

 

[idea]

Infinite regress

The chicken or the egg, which came first? What was the first cause? then what was the cause of that? the existence of anything only makes sense in the absence of time imo.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The chicken or the egg, which came first? What was the first cause? then what was the cause of that? the existence of anything only makes sense in the absence of time imo.

Lol technically the egg, as other species were laying eggs before the domesticated chicken came about.

 

[Windwalker]

Yep, eternity is defined as without end, the issue is that people tack on "without beginning" unjustly. Eternity is everlasting but this is almost always conflated with infinite.
The word it derives from which is aevum means without age but age is not equivalent to time.

I believe the term eternity is equivalent to timelessness. Timelessness is not linear. It cannot have any point of beginning or end and remain timeless. From what I just read of this word aevum, it is imagined to be this state that lies between the timeless and the temporal existence of material beings (see Wiki article).

Timeless has no beginning. It's not just tacked on there. Only points on line of movement, such as within all time, have points of reference. Whereas the eternal has no points of reference. It is every-where and no-where at all points in time.

Think of it like a Mobius Strip. Time moves across the surface of this strip in a progression round and round. We can assign any beginning point and ending point to a particular line wherever we like on that strip and make measurements to our heart's desire. But the timeless is the strip itself. It has no beginning and end points. It exists at all points we may assign infinitely, and at no point itself. The "Beginning and the End" are metaphoric expressions of the timeless eternal, that empty surface upon which all temporal, temporary, being "lives and moves and has its being", infinitely.

And so with God, there is no point where God is not. No point where God was not. No point where God will not be. It is the same at any point. It exists equally within all moments and all planes of existence. It does not move, begin, or end. And hence to "find God", you merely need to look exactly where you are in time and see what is itself always now, the timeless.

 

[4consideration]

If god IS within the dimensions of time and space, then why are we (humans) not able to detect him in any way? If god lives among us, it stands to reason that we would be able to pick him up with our senses( i.e. see or hear him), but we can't, why is that? Religious belief is based completely on faith. There is not a religious person on the planet that can demonstrate the existence of god to someone else with material evidence.

Well...I don't know what everyone else on the planet is able to do, and I don't know how you might have arrived at such absolute certainty that you can make such a statement as your last one. I'm inclined to think it is fairly accurate, but I don't have that type of faith required to take an absolute stance on the matter. I think that would take an awful lot of data, and I'm too lazy (and probably too dumb) to even figure out how to compile and go through that much stuff myself.

In response to your first couple of sentences. Do we expect that a fish is really able to understand water? Is the fish actually aware of that in which it lives and is completely surrounded by -- that which is necessary for its very movement and life. Or is the fish so connected to it, that it simply cannot see water separately from itself? I don't know for sure, but I think it likely that the fish does not perceive water in the same way we do.

I think of it like air for people. We can't usually see it, not without tools. Sometimes we can see it when there is a large enough concentration of something in it, but generally I think it's accurate to say that we're not spending a lot of time each day consciously aware of and contemplating air -- unless we're concerned about something like lack of it, or pollution of it.

We can perceive movements of it. We can study the makeup of it with certain tools developed by others. We can now look at what it actually contains with the right kind of tool.

Can you prove to me that air exists without relying on the word, work, or tools developed by another human being?

Even with tools, I think you need to right one. Could you demonstrate to me the actual makeup of the air by using a telescope? It surrounds us, and yet so much of it has been a virtual mystery for so long.

I think it exists though. Much of it I have take on personal experience, and some measure of faith that some of the people that have come before me actually knew something about what they were talking about.

I remember giggling in elementary school I first saw a model of a molecule as being some brightly colored balls connected together, because I knew stuff was not made of brightly colored balls.