SRWelch

An interesting topic concerning the ambiguity of "eternity" and the "everlasting" in the Bible. Posted on the Christian Apologetics.com website.

<a href="http://www.apologetics.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000055" target="_blank">http://www.apologetics.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000055</A>

Amos

Eternal life is opposite to temporal life. Since temporal life is smaller than eternal life, it must be extrapolated from eternal life, and if this is true, eternal life must be real. If eternal life is real, temporal life could not be real, wherefore we can die, which now means that we cannot die in eternal life.

The problem we now have is that we can only "die in a life that is not real!"

Worse yet, if eternal life is real, and heaven is the place where we spend eternal life, eternal hell must be conceived to exist to make eternal heaven known. This now means that eternal hell is real, and thus a place where we cannot die while yearning to get to heaven when we die. This must be hell!

Amos

Edited for punctuation, (did I get it right?)

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

diana

Originally posted by Amos:
Eternal life is opposite to temporal life.

I'd agree that eternal and temporal are opposites, and can accept the premise that temporal life does, indeed, exist. But "eternal life" is an assertion for which I require support.

Since temporal life is smaller than eternal life,

(I.e., just accept my assumption that "eternal life" is real.)

it must be extrapolated from eternal life,

(I.e., Please continue to ignore the fact that I'm still asserting the existence of "eternal life.")

and if this is true,

(I'm hoping I lost you in the mental maze I've created, you'll be impressed with my apparent logic--notice I'm using all the right phrases like "extrapolated" and "if this is true"--and you won't scream "Bullshit.")

eternal life must be real.

(I hope you've forgotten by this point that I assumed eternal life in the premise of this "proof" that eternal life is real, and that you've never heard of "circular reasoning" and wouldn't recognize it if it bit you on the ass.)

If eternal life is real, temporal life could not be real,...

(If you've made it this far, nodding and saying Amen, this one will be comparatively easy to swallow. Now that I've proven the existence of eternal life, I expect you to simply accept that every characteristic of it must be opposite to those of temporal life, since this is how I get the notion that eternal life really does exist, therefore temporal life must not. See how I did that?)

wherefore we can die, which now means that we cannot die in eternal life.

(The fact that we can die in this life, I feel, proves that this life isn't real. See? Therefore (or "wherefore," since it sounds a bit more scholarly), eternal life--which I feel I've already established as a fact--necessarily infers the absence of death, aka "eternal life." Duh.)

The problem we now have is that we can only "die in a life that is not real!"

(See what mental gymnastics like this leads to?)

Worse yet, if eternal life is real,

(See my first argument if you have any doubts at this point. Continue to read it until your brain stops functioning, then resume reading HERE.)

and heaven is the place where we spend eternal life,

(Please ignore the fact that I've now offered a postulated place where "we" spend a postulated time.)

eternal hell must be conceived to exist to make eternal heaven known.

(Since the assumed premise of my previous argument is that opposites are necessary for anything to exist as such, and every characteristic of those opposites are also opposite, by definition, this means the opposite of eternal heaven would be temporal hell. Right? Oh hell. Consistency is overrated.)

This now means that eternal hell is real,

(By this point, I expect you've either stopped reading altogether and/or your brain has atrophied from my nonsensical attempts at logic, which means you're ripe to receive Christ.)

and thus a place where we cannot die while yearning to get to heaven when we die.

(Thus you see clearly how my ideas of eternity, heaven and hell are all mutually exclusive.)

This must be hell!

Obligatory comment: trying to make some sense of your post qualifies, no doubt.

Amos, if you are the same who went under the moniker "Amos123" a while back, I compliment you on your increased lucidity, and urge you, with whatever the new medication it is you are taking, to up the dosage.

If, however, you aren't that person and posted this discourse tongue-in-cheek, I apologize for treating it as though you meant it seriously. I do hate it when people don't "get" my sarcasm.

d

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Amos

Hi diane, I am dead serious and I am just Amos until the 'real' Amos comes around.

The only reason why time exist is because we have created it in our own conscious mind. My evidence here is that we are not time conscious while asleep or under hypnosis. Eternal life is this same passing of time as when we are asleep except here we are awake. Some would call it the eternal moment.

This same is true with glossolalia, which is a stream of words flowing over the Adam's apple without the conscious interjection of convention.

To deny eternal life now is equal to you telling me that we speak with our mouth and not with our mind. If you think that my parallel is not fair ask yourself if you read with your eyes or with your mind. Having said this, just ask why you need to ask yourself these questions to prove that you exist even if absent from your conscious mind.

My "if this is true" is there because I am taking you into my non-rational induction story. Do you now believe it is a true story?

Amos123

diana

Originally posted by Amos:
Hi diane,

Hi, Amose.

I am dead serious and I am just Amos until the 'real' Amos comes around.

Ah. So you are 123, huh?

The only reason why time exist is because we have created it in our own conscious mind. My evidence here is that we are not time conscious while asleep or under hypnosis.

I don't know about that. My internal clock can wake me up at 6am. How can it do that if I'm not somehow conscious of time while I sleep?

Your argument here is basically the same as someone arguing that the outside world ceases to exist when they close their front door. Because your perception changes does not imply in any way that reality changes.

Please present convincing evidence that time only exists in our conscious mind if you wish to pursue this line of reasoning. (I use the word "reasoning" loosely.)

Eternal life is this same passing of time as when we are asleep except here we are awake. Some would call it the eternal moment.

Some would call "eternal life" a myth. You have not yet presented any reason why I should accept it as fact.

This same is true with glossolalia, which is a stream of words flowing over the Adam's apple without the conscious interjection of convention.

This same what is true with glosswhatever? If you wish to draw an analogy, please take a moment to make the analogy clear. Thanks.

To deny eternal life now is equal to you telling me that we speak with our mouth and not with our mind.



If you think that my parallel is not fair ask yourself if you read with your eyes or with your mind.

I think your parallel is not clear.

Having said this, just ask why you need to ask yourself these questions to prove that you exist even if absent from your conscious mind.

Ask myself what questions? Prove what to myself? If what or who is absent from my conscious mind?

My "if this is true" is there because I am taking you into my non-rational induction story. Do you now believe it is a true story?

I believe you suffer from <a href="http://www.umich.edu/~psycours/345/lecture12/tsld007.htm" target="_blank">Wernicke's Aphasia</a>. I understand you about as well as I understand <a href="http://www.indiana.edu/~langacq/S436/188-220/tsld030.htm" target="_blank">this</a>.

d

Amos

Thanks for calling it your "internal clock." It is part of your right brain (loosely used here) in which time-as-such is not known.

Glossolalia is speaking in tongues.

That should do it.

Amos

diana

"That should do it" doesn't help me understand any of the word salad that is your second post. But I now wonder what speaking in tongues has to do with the price of eggs in China, to add to the confusion.

If you wish to communicate, it would help if you put forth effort to make yourself understood. I've said I don't understand. Your job, now, is to reduce your reasoning to more elementary levels so I may follow your train of thought.

If you can.

d