On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 13:14:36 -0700 "John (Burgy) Burgeson"
<hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com> writes:
> Dave writes: "I contend that the only kind of eternity which can
> properly
> apply to the deity apart from the incarnation is a timeless one."
>
> Well -- that's the way that problem I spoke of is "solved." Or at
> least
> explained away. Of course it COULD be true. But it remains just a
> theoretical ad hoc explanation none the less.
>
> Burgy
>
Burgy,
It is easy to label any view with which one disagrees ad hoc. But I would
ask you to examine the consequences and requirements of an eternity of
time without a beginning, however that time is construed, vs. a timeless
eternity. The former requires infinite past time but no future time at
the moment, for this is a moving terminus ad quem. The latter provides
for a beginning to time with the universe, with its space and matter. You
should soon discover whether my view is ad hoc or, given the available
scientific and theological information, at least close to necessary.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 05 2002 - 16:02:54 EST