What is the religious definition of eternity?

[Windwalker]

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.

I understand quite well how that works. It's a metaphor until it fits within a particular theology, and then it's literal. The sun standing still, is a metaphor, unless you reject a heliocentric model of the solar system, then it's God's word revealing facts; the sun orbits the earth and literally stopped.

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

This reminds me of how that Catholic church will allow a metaphoric understanding, so long as you also acknowledge it is to be taken in a strict literal reading. That's more political than real.

I'll grant this, if the original authors of the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, literally imagined God to be a physical corporeal being, that does not mean it is what God is. It is what they imagined God was, in a culture and time far removed from the ways we think today, to the point you or I cannot say definitely what exactly that was. The important thing is that such an understanding of God is not something that fits into later understandings, much less my own.

I do not approach these texts as infallible revelations from God that define God in concrete terms. I find that to be placing a shackle on our mind's and spirit's ability to grow in knowledge and understanding. Even if, for some reason, these are perfect revelations that are like some specific, detailed "owner's manual" of God, there is no one human alive who reads these without their own subjective interpretation. Point in hand, you read these in extremely concrete-literal terms. I understand them metaphorically. I cannot see God ultimately as a some human-like physical entity with a mustache and a beard and goes by the name "God" on his driver's license.

Therefore, if I read in the Bible that God "walked in the garden", I would see this as an anthropomorphic expression of the presence of God in human awareness. Man was aware of God, unclouded in his awareness by sin, and so forth. Someone who thinks God is human-like in his nature, sees this as a literal description of a corporeal being, and then goes the path of imagining all sorts of theologies surrounding that; God with a literal wife, having literal children, living in a literal city, on some literal planet, and so forth.

As I said, how we read the same texts will vary widely because our experiences and perceptions and knowledge vary widely. Scripture cannot be authoritative over anyone's perception, because if someone does not have the context to see a certain way, they simply cannot see now matter what explanations are shown. A concrete-literal, mythic-literal understanding cannot think in "as-if" terms this way. God is a literal man, because that's all that can be imagined. My experience allows me to see in non-literal ways, that are true and real, just understood vastly less concretely.

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.

It's not the appearance, but the behavior itself. The outside of the cup reflects the inside. The image, is pointing to the inside. The outside is merely a reflection of the inner truth. Therefore, the image of God, is God's nature. The behaviors flowing from that nature manifest God, or a lack of God, a constriction of the soul. It is not the clothing, but the manner. "By their fruits you shall know them". We become God in the world, by conforming to that image of God in our souls. It's not about taking a bath and dressing nice.

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

Same difference.

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."

Very well. I simply cannot read the texts the same way. That egg of literalism has already been cooked and cannot be uncooked. It's not silly to you, and I'll respect that for you.

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.

As I rue quibbling over the usage of Greek and the way these words can be interpreted in much better ways than they are, I'll leave that to others and again come back to my earlier point. I understand these differently. I understand the image of God to be expressive of that essential nature of God, of Spirit (which is non-corporeal). The express image of God, is the "radiance of his Glory", not having a nose, two eyes, hair, ears, and all those physical body parts. In fact to me, to make God a man like this, dethrones God in the imagination of the heart. It makes God like a Yeti, IMO. It guts God of that eternal, timeless nature we are talking about in this thread. God being a physical being, destroys God.

I love so dearly what the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart said so wonderfully that cuts to the heart of just this, "I pray God to make me free of God, for [His] unconditioned Being is above God and all distinctions." To define God at all reduces God to our own ideas limited by our programmed minds. To describe God literally as a physical person, further removes us from knowing God "above all distinctions". I simply cannot relate to God like this, having been exposed to what God is beyond this.

 

[Repox]

Because of time, we are handicapped in any discussion of eternity. Science agrees that time began with the big bang. Time is and always has been the primary measure of things in the universe. I believe God's eternity can best be explained as the absence of time. Time began with God's first creation. So, to conceptualize eternity, you must factor out time. Because humans aren't capable of doing that, no one can really understand eternity.

In contrast to a human, an angel could explain eternity. Because angels were created to have unlimited lifespans with God, they have superior knowledge. As mortal beings, humans have a temporary lives, they can only conceptualize about God's eternity.

If however, eternity is defined as a timeless stage after death, we have another issue. Assuming we, like angels have a spiritual life with God in heaven, are we eternal? No, I don't think so because our eternal condition depends on God. If God's creatures could go back in time, or if they could go forward to another era, they would be like God. However, that is not possible. Only God can create something from nothing, or contradict physical laws.

In short, any discussion about eternity must include God, the only eternal being in existence.

 

[Skwim]

Because of time, we are handicapped in any discussion of eternity.

Why?

Science agrees that time began with the big bang.

I assume you mean scientists. Science is something scientists do. And while scientists typically measure time from the BB, they have also proposed time before the BB. See the work of cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, for one.

Time is and always has been the primary measure of things in the universe.

Really!! So you think that things are better represented by their place in time rather than by, say, their length, width, breadth, and mass? From what I've observed about the description of things, time is rarely, if ever, mentioned.

I believe God's eternity can best be explained as the absence of time. Time began with God's first creation. So, to conceptualize eternity, you must factor out time. Because humans aren't capable of doing that, no one can really understand eternity.

If humans are incapable of "conceptualizing eternity" then how can anyone's (god's in this case) eternity best be explained as the absence of time? Particularly when eternity is inexorably tied to time? So far, Repox, you're not making any sense here.

In contrast to a human, an angel could explain eternity. Because angels were created to have unlimited lifespans with God, they have superior knowledge. As mortal beings, humans have a temporary lives, they can only conceptualize about God's eternity.

And this little parcel of knowledge can be verified by ______________fill in the blank________________ .

If however, eternity is defined as a timeless stage after death, we have another issue. Assuming we, like angels have a spiritual life with God in heaven, are we eternal? No, I don't think so because our eternal condition depends on God. If God's creatures could go back in time, or if they could go forward to another era, they would be like God. However, that is not possible. Only God can create something from nothing, or contradict physical laws.

In short, any discussion about eternity must include God, the only eternal being in existence.

Sorry, but I fail to see how your "in short . . . ." alludes to anything you've said.




Unsubstantiated claims don't fly well here. Gotta show your work, Repox.

 

[Repox]

Why?

I assume you mean scientists. Science is something scientists do. And while scientists typically measure time from the BB, they have also proposed time before the BB. See the work of cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, for one.

All that we know depends on time to know it!!! Otherwise, we would have knowledge without learning, which is impossible. Physical laws depend on time in order that they may be observed, etc. It is so easy, why don't you get it.

All things learned are related to time, including what we know about our universe. All processes in the universe are time bound! If you exclude time, you would not exist.

B] Really!! So you think that things are better represented by their place in time rather than by, say, their length, width, breadth, and mass? From what I've observed about the description of things, time is rarely, if ever, mentioned.

No, I didn't say that, neither did I say time determines everything, including known measures. I was discussing eternity, and apparently you think time has nothing to do with it. That is silly, and kind of dumb.

If humans are incapable of "conceptualizing eternity" then how can anyone's (god's in this case) eternity best be explained as the absence of time? Particularly when eternity is inexorably tied to time? So far, Repox, you're not making any sense here.

I don't understand how anyone can exclude time in a discussion of eternity. Obviously, you don't know how time and eternity are related. So far, you are making no sense. If eternity is not related to time, what are its parameters. So, you are suggesting that time is irrelevant to eternity. How can that be? When discussing eternity don't we address the beginning and ending of things. If there was no time, how could we conceptualize eternity? What would be the variables for that discussion? Would we say eternity just exists?

Humans are incapable of understanding eternity because they only understand time. They can hypothesize about it, but can never really understand it. Only God, the author of eternity, understands it.

And this little parcel of knowledge can be verified by ______________fill in the blank________________ .

Sorry, but I fail to see how your "in short . . . ." alludes to anything you've said.

Unsubstantiated claims don't fly well here. Gotta show your work, Repox.

You criticism of my ideas about time and eternity have no substance. You cannot discuss eternity without time. Furthermore, you cannot discuss life without time, it is the correlative measure of all events in the universe.
Explain eternity without the concept of time.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This reminds me of how that Catholic church will allow a metaphoric understanding, so long as you also acknowledge it is to be taken in a strict literal reading. That's more political than real.

The Church doesn't say that you have to interpret every verse as strictly literal. It ends up being a nonsense then.

 

[Windwalker]

The Church doesn't say that you have to interpret every verse as strictly literal. It ends up being a nonsense then.

I didn't intend for my statement to mean they say every verse needs to be read literally. I was saying that, for instance, if someone was to understand the Garden of Eden story as allegory, the church might say, "That's fine. You can read it that way, but you must acknowledge it is also literally true". If you express doubt to that, you're at risk of being a heretic.

 

[Windwalker]

So, to conceptualize eternity, you must factor out time. Because humans aren't capable of doing that, no one can really understand eternity.

Why do you say this? Because you have yourself never experienced timelessness? I have, and can tell you humans are capable of knowing what that is. I do. Many do.

As mortal beings, humans have a temporary lives, they can only conceptualize about God's eternity.

Conceptualizing is a function of the brain, creating mental models and whatnot. Being in touch with your essential being is not a function of mental modeling. If you can step out of your thinking and reasoning mind and just "be", then the spirit is what is eternal, timeless. The body is temporal. You know with the eye of spirit, not with the eye of mind.

If however, eternity is defined as a timeless stage after death, we have another issue.

The timeless being "after death" as you defined it, is placed on a scale of time, "after" death. That is not timelessness. The timeless is now, and now, and now, and now, and now, and now, and now............................. If you can exist in the now, you can open to and experience that timeless. You can experience God, as opposed to the world of your conceptual mind seeing in terms of ideas within time.

Assuming we, like angels have a spiritual life with God in heaven, are we eternal?

Realizing, not assuming, we have a spiritual life with God here and now, we recognize we are eternal.

No, I don't think so because our eternal condition depends on God. If God's creatures could go back in time, or if they could go forward to another era, they would be like God. However, that is not possible. Only God can create something from nothing, or contradict physical laws.

In short, any discussion about eternity must include God, the only eternal being in existence.

And if we are created in the image of God, are we not spiritual, which is not bound by time?

 

[dantech]

Every religious person that I've ever met describes the god of the bible as being eternal and that he is not bound by space, time, and matter. With that said, I would like to get the opinion of religious people (or non-religious) as to what exactly eternity is? This question is intended to get people to think critically. I will respond to your answer with a follow-up question that will further my reasoning behind the original question. All responses are appreciated! Thanks!

I think that by using terms like "space, time, and matter", you are trying to explain spirituality with scientific laws to which God doesn't abide.

I don't think it's as simple as saying, for example, that God isn't bound by the laws of time, space or matter. It's more about imagining how a world without these laws could exist at all. It's impossible for us to actually understand what Eternal means when it comes to God.

Simple example would be of trying to understand what living without gravity would be like. Knowing what the true sensation of "floating" is... Without actually being in space, you couldn't know that sensation. By the same means, I think that without being in God's place, we can't really understand his attributes, or "How he works". We can learn a lot about him by comparing him to humanity, but we will not be able to truly know.

 

[nazz]

I think that by using terms like "space, time, and matter", you are trying to explain spirituality with scientific laws to which God doesn't abide.

I don't think it's as simple as saying, for example, that God isn't bound by the laws of time, space or matter. It's more about imagining how a world without these laws could exist at all. It's impossible for us to actually understand what Eternal means when it comes to God.

Simple example would be of trying to understand what living without gravity would be like. Knowing what the true sensation of "floating" is... Without actually being in space, you couldn't know that sensation. By the same means, I think that without being in God's place, we can't really understand his attributes, or "How he works". We can learn a lot about him by comparing him to humanity, but we will not be able to truly know.

But mustn't God at least conform to the laws of logic?

 

[Repox]

why do you say this? Because you have yourself never experienced timelessness? I have, and can tell you humans are capable of knowing what that is. I do. Many do.

How is that possible? Even thinking about timelessness requires time. Every single incidence of our experience has time. To truly be timeless we would have to be suspend time, and that is impossible.

conceptualizing is a function of the brain, creating mental models and whatnot. Being in touch with your essential being is not a function of mental modeling. If you can step out of your thinking and reasoning mind and just "be", then the spirit is what is eternal, timeless. The body is temporal. You know with the eye of spirit, not with the eye of mind.

no, you only think it is. Your thoughts about thinking you are out of "your thinking and reasoning mind" requires time. You may think your spirit is eternal, but that is a function of thoughts, not being timeless.

the timeless being "after death" as you defined it, is placed on a scale of time, "after" death. That is not timelessness. The timeless is now, and now, and now, and now, and now, and now, and now............................. If you can exist in the now, you can open to and experience that timeless. You can experience god, as opposed to the world of your conceptual mind seeing in terms of ideas within time.

that is what you imagine you experience, and it may be true that you experience god, but as long as you are here to explain it, it is not a timeless experience. We don't know, but maybe in heaven there is a time clock for angels, each one according to the order of its creation. How would they measure time? I suspect angels have memories of experiences with god, so those memories would be like a clock. The older the angels the longer and more detailed would be those memories. Only god can suspend time or see all time periods past, present and future.

realizing, not assuming, we have a spiritual life with god here and now, we recognize we are eternal.

I don't agree, it is only possible to have eternal life with god, but that is a forward experience, you could not see beyond your own creation. In other words, you could not experience god before he created you. Otherwise you would be equal to god. When you say you have eternal life with god, you mean god has given it to you to be with him in heaven.

and if we are created in the image of god, are we not spiritual, which is not bound by time?

I don't believe we are spiritual unless god changes our mortal bodies to be immortal. We are just like infrahuman species, we just think we are special. If we didn't have language skills, we would just be "another" species.

 

[Windwalker]

How is that possible? Even thinking about timelessness requires time. Every single incidence of our experience has time. To truly be timeless we would have to be suspend time, and that is impossible.

I'm not talking about thinking about it. I'm talking about being within it. It is simply conscious awareness that exists. Time is suspended. And you saying it is impossible is incorrect. There are experiences that occur outside time, such as in God. I have experienced this. I know the difference between experiences in time, and time being suspended. It's not subtle.

How it is possible, as you ask, is to step outside of the world created by your own mind into that which is infinite and eternal.

no, you only think it is. Your thoughts about thinking you are out of "your thinking and reasoning mind" requires time. You may think your spirit is eternal, but that is a function of thoughts, not being timeless.

No. The thoughts I have are after the fact, and my reasoning mind calls that being outside of time. The experience was/is not the result of conceptualizing anything. It simply happens by stepping beyond that normal reasoning mind, via whatever means takes you out. The experience is direct, and only after the fact we conceptualize it, which is itself not the experience of the timeless. Any words are merely descriptions of something.

that is what you imagine you experience, and it may be true that you experience god, but as long as you are here to explain it, it is not a timeless experience.

Why not? Says who? I am body, mind, soul, and spirit. As I speak about it, I am using my mind to formulate into descriptive words something not experienced through the eye of mind, but through the eye of spirit, which is itself eternal. The thinking mind is bound to time, no doubt. But we are all in our nature both temporal and eternal. To speak about something as I am now, I know I am using my temporal mind. It is "translating" something experience by spirit, not bound by time, into words bound by time. And yes, it certainly is the experience of timelessness. It's a night and day difference between what we normally experience from all our life experiences.

We don't know, but maybe in heaven there is a time clock for angels, each one according to the order of its creation. How would they measure time? I suspect angels have memories of experiences with god, so those memories would be like a clock. The older the angels the longer and more detailed would be those memories. Only god can suspend time or see all time periods past, present and future.

Whatever this is supposed to mean, is nothing other that just some sort of theological speculations based on no personal experience. It's meaningless to me, actually.

I don't agree, it is only possible to have eternal life with god, but that is a forward experience, you could not see beyond your own creation. In other words, you could not experience god before he created you. Otherwise you would be equal to god. When you say you have eternal life with god, you mean god has given it to you to be with him in heaven.

Why do you say all this? Because it doesn't fit your theological speculations that are completely tied to your limited experiences?

The experience of God is the experience of God. God is eternal; timeless. To experience God is to experience what IS, at all time, and at no time. It is God that is timeless, and to experience God is to experience the timeless. "Before Abraham was, I AM"... and they took up stones.....

 

[Skwim]

You criticism of my ideas about time and eternity have no substance. You cannot discuss eternity without time. Furthermore, you cannot discuss life without time, it is the correlative measure of all events in the universe.
Explain eternity without the concept of time.

I'm sorry you fail to understand my replies. Perhaps your reading comprehension will have improved the next time we meet. Ciao.

 

[Repox]

I'm sorry you fail to understand my replies. Perhaps your reading comprehension will have improved the next time we meet. Ciao.

Our disagreement is about your misinterpretation of my comments about time and eternity. You seemed to think time is of little importance for the concept of eternity. Mortality is based on time, we turn to dust because of time. To live eternally with God does not negate the concept. Even in heaven, there is time, time for God's creatures to be with God. Only God is excluded from the dictates of time. If it were not true, God's heavenly creatures could transcend to a earlier time, one before their creation. However, only God can do that.

Angels may know past and future events if God gives them that knowledge. However, angels have no power or ability to be like God. There was one angel however who did try to become like God, that was Satan. Can you imagine a heaven world where angels sit around thinking about past and future events, ignoring God because they are too busy being gods?

Taking the contrary view, if there was no time, what would it be like? Assuming time equals the unfolding of events, there would be nothing, just pure uniformity. That, of course, is difficult to imagine. For humans, it is an exercise is futility. Only God knows. I imagine, even for God, there is unfolding of events, the most basic being God's interaction with Himself (if you prefer, with Herself). Assuming God is a duality, there would be continual interaction between the two Gods. Without external references, like angels to observe the two Gods, time would be nonexistent.

 

[dantech]

But mustn't God at least conform to the laws of logic?

Human logic? I don't think so, no.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

My hole point behind this is if god is eternal and eternity IS related to time, then how can god be outside the dimension of time?

If god is eternal, then by definition, wouldn't he be at least be INSIDE the dimension of time?

If god is outside the dimension of time, then how is his existence even possible since time is a prerequisite for anything to exist or happen?

What makes you think time is connected to existence? TIME is man made, a way for us to order our lives - do you really think the universe needs seconds, minutes?....it would be like spotting an ant on the floor from the top of the Eiffel Tower! I think people confuse themselves by forgetting that much of what we perceive such as a time/days/the calendar etc is created by us (humans) to help us understand things and to put things into perspective! A great example it's the year 2013...how old is the universe?

We are bound by time...our lives are limited to around 75years (average)
Plants have limited time and are therefore bound by time
Some flys only live for a day! (How horrible!)

Eternity isn't bound by time...there s no beginning or end (as someone has pointed out that's a simple dictionary question...has nothing to do with religion)

Most scientists would agree the universe infinite constantly expanding...eternal is infinite time! Although the universe has a beginning so isn't necessarily eternal From a science perspective before the Big Bang..do you really think time existed? It's a human perspective...somethings are just beyond imagining whether you believe in God or not.

You could say eternity is related to existence...when something starts existing to when it finishes...the range of something in mathematical terms...

Get a pen..Draw a circle...place the tip on the line and follow it...stop when you get to the end...that's eternal

 

[Skwim]

I'm sorry you fail to understand my replies. Perhaps your reading comprehension will have improved the next time we meet. Ciao.

Our disagreement is about your misinterpretation of my comments about time and eternity.
You seemed to think time is of little importance for the concept of eternity. Mortality is based on time, we turn to dust because of time. To live eternally with God does not negate the concept. Even in heaven, there is time, time for God's creatures to be with God. Only God is excluded from the dictates of time. If it were not true, God's heavenly creatures could transcend to a earlier time, one before their creation. However, only God can do that.

Angels may know past and future events if God gives them that knowledge. However, angels have no power or ability to be like God. There was one angel however who did try to become like God, that was Satan. Can you imagine a heaven world where angels sit around thinking about past and future events, ignoring God because they are too busy being gods?

Taking the contrary view, if there was no time, what would it be like? Assuming time equals the unfolding of events, there would be nothing, just pure uniformity. That, of course, is difficult to imagine. For humans, it is an exercise is futility. Only God knows. I imagine, even for God, there is unfolding of events, the most basic being God's interaction with Himself (if you prefer, with Herself). Assuming God is a duality, there would be continual interaction between the two Gods. Without external references, like angels to observe the two Gods, time would be nonexistent.

Nope, it hasn't improved a bit. Let's give it more time, shall we.

 

[Repox]

Nope, it hasn't improved a bit. Let's give it more time, shall we.

I don't think this is a worthwhile exchange. You're an atheist. That limits our discussion, you'll always disagree with my argument about eternity because it includes God.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think this is a worthwhile exchange. You're an atheist. That limits our discussion, you'll always disagree with my argument about eternity because it includes God.

That you fail to see the distinction between an agnostic and an atheist is also reason enough. Have a good day.

 

[Repox]

That you fail to see the distinction between an agnostic and an atheist is also reason enough. Have a good day.

Yes, I did get that confused, didn't I. Sorry, I should not close the door to any discussion.

 

[Wolke]

"Eternity" can mean an infinite duration within time, or a mode of being unconditioned by time. In religion, the word tends to assume the latter definition. It can also mean "self-sufficient," but that amounts to the same thing as the second definition above, for only something outside of time can be truly self-sufficient.