As I understand, God was the beginning and God is the end, i.e, Alpha and Omega (Revelations 8:1). The period in question is called time.
However, as I understand, eternity has no beginning, nor does it have an end. Thus, it existed before the beginning of time and will continue after the end of time.

To put it another way, take a pencil and a blank sheet of paper. Place the point of the pencil on the paper and draw a circle, which is to extend the point 360 degrees back to its point of origin. We call the initial point the beginning of the circle and the reconnecting point the end of the circle. Yet when we look at it there is no beginning nor is there an end. We have created a continuous loop. But have we? I say no. We have created nothing but a mere tracing of the circle. It was there before we placed the pencil at the initial point. We could not see it, but we conceived of it. There was no beginning or end. This is the same as eternity. Time was the period that it took to trace from point A to point B. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer to it as point A to point Z, or Alpha to Omega. This is the period God deals with--Alpha to Omega.

Now, back to my original question: what was there before Alpha and Omega?

Now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsUp2Me

As I understand, God was the beginning and God is the end, i.e, Alpha and Omega (Revelations 8:1). The period in question is called time.
However, as I understand, eternity has no beginning, nor does it have an end. Thus, it existed before the beginning of time and will continue after the end of time.

To put it another way, take a pencil and a blank sheet of paper. Place the point of the pencil on the paper and draw a circle, which is to extend the point 360 degrees back to its point of origin. We call the initial point the beginning of the circle and the reconnecting point the end of the circle. Yet when we look at it there is no beginning nor is there an end. We have created a continuous loop. But have we? I say no. We have created nothing but a mere tracing of the circle. It was there before we placed the pencil at the initial point. We could not see it, but we conceived of it. There was no beginning or end. This is the same as eternity. Time was the period that it took to trace from point A to point B. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer to it as point A to point Z, or Alpha to Omega. This is the period God deals with--Alpha to Omega.

Now, back to my original question: what was there before Alpha and Omega?

---

Hi ItsUp2Me,

Immanuel Kant in his,"Critique of Pure Reason" answers most of your questions.

The sticking point is time. Time and Space represent things as they appear to us not as they actually are. These could be called things-for-us and things-in-themselves. Time and space are the glasses we are forced to wear. We cannot remove the glasses and see what eternity looks like(things-in-themselves). In other words we are forced to look at everything in terms of experience, with the glasses on (things-for-us).

When you talk about the concept of a circle or the concept of eternity the important word is CONCEPT. There is nothing in this world we can point to and say, that is an example of eternity.In the same way we are unable to point to the circle that isn't there( even though it is a concept). Because these concepts are conceived in the mind and not necessarily based in experience they are know as apriori (prior to experience)

Now this does not mean that experience is just experience. Kant would say that experience has an apriori aspect to it as well. The world we are all so familiar with is the result of something we are presented with and the result of apriori conditions supplied by the mind.

In other words, mind and experience come together to give what we understand. We have no choice in the matter. It would be good if we could neatly divide mind and experience and look at things in light of this division. It would be interesting to see what eternity looks like. But according to Kant this is not possible for us mere humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

There is nothing in this world we can point to and say, that is an example of eternity.

---

Ye, there is. An example of eternity is a cat sitting peacefully on his brisket in the sun with his eyes closed.

Hi Wondergirl,

What is a cat's brisket??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Wondergirl,

What is a cat's brisket????

---

Please use the Merriam-Webster online dictionary to look up the word "brisket," or read several of the books in The Cat Who... series of mysteries by Lilian Jackson Braun.

When you eat a brisket of beef or corned beef, what body part is it from?

Hello again Wondergirl,


Oh I see, he is lying on his side contemplating eternity. The other alternative is that he could be lying there for an eternity. If your cats lie there for an eternity then they would end up with very sore briskets.
If cats can contemplate eternity we can never know anything about it. All we can do is observe their behaviour, brisket and all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Oh I see, he is lying on his side contemplating eternity. The other alternative is that he could be lying there for an eternity. If your cats lie there for an eternity then they would end up with very sore briskets.

---

No, he is not lying on his side.

He isn't contemplating anything, even eternity. He is in the Moment, the Now. There is no Past or Future, just Now.

Look at my avatar. I've changed it to Lady Jane Grey sitting on her brisket.

Hi wondergirl

Interesting isn't it. When a cat is on her side she is lying on her brisket, but when she is on her sternum she is sitting on her brisket.
When you get to may age; you see one brisket you've seen them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi wondergirl

Interesting isn't it. When a cat is on her side she is lying on her brisket, but when she is on her sternum she is sitting on her brisket.
When you get to may age; you see one brisket you've seen them all.

---

When a cat is lying on its side, it is lying on its side, not its brisket. If she were lying on her sternum, she would be tipped forward with her face touching the floor.

You must not be a cat person or an anatomy person.

God the Father, God the Son, and
God the Spirit. They have no beginning or no end. That's the way it is .

Maggie 3

Col 1:15, 16 Calls Jesus the first-born of all creation. Indicating Jesus did have a beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maggie 3

God the Father, God the Son, and
God the Spirit. They have no beginning or no end. That's the way it is .

Maggie 3

---

Hello Maggie 3

My understanding of ItsUp2Me's original question seemed to show confusion about the nature of time. As far as I can tell there was a belief that there are two types of time. In this regard time seems to create a popular illusion. There is the time we normally experience and a special category of time reserved for, 'higher realities'.

Kant argues that even though time and space are prior to experience, we cannot separate time and space from experience. Therefore, when we talk about religious matters they are always couched in the language of experience e.g.. Beginnings, ends, infinity.

As far as the trinity is concerned I don't see it being referred to in the original question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockie100

Col 1:15, 16 Calls Jesus the first-born of all creation. Indicating Jesus did have a beginning.

---

Hello rockie100,

I don't see this as a problem. Jesus was born a man therefore, he existed in time and space as we know it.

As far as creation is concerned Kant argues that if the world didn't have a beginning then for every moment in time an eternity would have lapsed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsUp2Me

As I understand, God was the beginning and God is the end, i.e, Alpha and Omega (Revelations 8:1). The period in question is called time.
However, as I understand, eternity has no beginning, nor does it have an end. Thus, it existed before the beginning of time and will continue after the end of time.

To put it another way, take a pencil and a blank sheet of paper. Place the point of the pencil on the paper and draw a circle, which is to extend the point 360 degrees back to its point of origin. We call the initial point the beginning of the circle and the reconnecting point the end of the circle. Yet when we look at it there is no beginning nor is there an end. We have created a continuous loop. But have we? I say no. We have created nothing but a mere tracing of the circle. It was there before we placed the pencil at the initial point. We could not see it, but we conceived of it. There was no beginning or end. This is the same as eternity. Time was the period that it took to trace from point A to point B. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer to it as point A to point Z, or Alpha to Omega. This is the period God deals with--Alpha to Omega.

Now, back to my original question: what was there before Alpha and Omega?

---

I would like to have another go at answering this question, but from a different angle.


As far as the period Alpha to Omega is concerned, this is pretty much self -evident. It is the time and space we are all familiar with and it is something that exist in front of us each day. We can move forward backwards up or down in a certain time frame. For example, I have an appointment at a certain location at at 2 pm in a certain building on the 3rd floor. This covers movement forwards, sideways and upwards and time as well. This is common sense. Well, Kant says that common sense is WRONG.

For Kant time and space is something that does not exist ,"out there".
Rather, it exists only in our minds. It is something that we necessarily impose on our experiences.

If Kant is wrong and time and space is an objective thing which exists independently of any person view then, ItsUp2Me's question regarding what existed before Alpha and Omega is a legitimate question.

On the other hand, if time and space is a concept of the mind, as Kant says, then ItsUp2Me's question is not legitimate. Things like beginning, end, infinity and eternity are things that cannot be determined by us.
We are wasting out time even thinking about them because we cannot shake off experience. In other words, our answers will always be couched in experience.

This is Kant's argument in three paragraphs... hmmm

I think we might do well to put Kant aside for a time and attempt to do some original thinking about the matter of before and after Alpha and Omega.

Our thinking on such matters, whether its conceptual or otherwise, is an indication of the degree of our ungodliness. If man is made in the image of God he can never see or understand himself. He can look into a conceptual mirror and see what he perceives to be his own image and imagine that this is also the image of God. However, there's that fuzzy zone, the twilight zone if you please, between himself and the mirror. What does that space contain and what is its meaning? This would be a sort of inverse of the outside of Alpha and Omega concept. It is ungodly! Therefore, in polite society we must not think of it, and never should be discuss it. To do otherwise will label ourselves as ungodly to our fellows.

Your answer seemed to invite disagreement with Kant's "argument in three paragraphs." So there.
_______
ItsUp2Me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsUp2Me

If man is made in the image of God he can never see or understand himself. He can look into a conceptual mirror and see what he perceives to be his own image and imagine that this is also the image of God.

---

"Image of God" (Imago Dei) has nothing to do with physical appearance as what one would see in a mirror. It refers to God's own self-expression through humankind (and all that that means), and to God's love for humankind (and all that that means).

The very fact that man is made in the image of God means that he can understand himself. As Wikipedia so neatly puts it: "Humans differ from all other creatures because of the self-reflective, rational nature of their thought processes - their capacity for abstract, symbolic as well as concrete deliberation and decision-making. This capacity gives the human a centeredness and completeness which allows the possibility for self-actualization and participation in a sacred reality."

Dear, I'm afraid you and I are operating on different wave lengths. Where I am coming from is a rather complex metaphorical platform situated outside the scheme of what we humans call reality. It's like we don't really exist as most people think they exist. We are more or less in a dream state, recalling our interactive life experiences from another existential state. I am not sure this adequately describes what I am attempting to communicate, but hopefully it will bring you some closer to the jest of my thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsUp2Me

Dear, I'm afraid you and I are operating on different wave lengths. Where I am coming from is a rather complex metaphorical platform situated outside the scheme of what we humans call reality. It's like we don't really exist as most people think they exist. We are more or less in a dream state, recalling our interactive life experiences from another existential state. I am not sure this adequately describes what I am attempting to communicate, but hopefully it will bring you some closer to the jest of my thinking.

---

If you are in some alternate reality then there isn't any way for the rest of us to understand you perfectly.

You are saying, then, that you do not understand the meaning of the term, metaphorical platform? This entire exchange is an exploratiion of a some great stroke of luck that we are all born of a cosmic uterine lottery making us different from anything we have previously imgined. I have chosen to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires. Granted, it is borderline insanity!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsUp2Me

Dear...hopefully it will bring you some closer to the jest of my thinking.

---

Please don't address other posters with put-downs.

I think I am already close to the "jest" of your thinking.

It was not my intent to put-down anyone. After reading your comment I re-read my own and I now see what you mean. Therefore, my sincere apologies are herefy offered. Still, I think there is some small merit in what I said--if nothing else, my admission to borderline insanity.

Hello ItsUp2Me,

Actually, I was going to apologize to you for my Kantian response to your question. Upon re-reading my last entry it did sound a bit arrogant. If it did then I apologize; it wasn't my intention. I was becoming a bit frustrated with myself for not being able to answer the question in a satisfactory manner.

As it turn out I have misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking about the nature of time and space. If that were the case then one must include Kant when talking about this type of philosophy.

In a previous post I imparted that “If man is made in the image of God he can never see or understand himself. ”
He can look into a conceptual mirror and see what he perceives to be his own image and imagine that this is also the image of God. However, there's that fuzzy zone, the twilight zone if you please, between himself and the mirror. What does that space contain and what is its meaning? This would be a sort of inverse of the outside of Alpha and Omega concept. It is ungodly! Therefore, in polite society we must not think of it, and never should it be discussed. To do otherwise will label ourselves as ungodly to our fellows.

Apparently the above, along with other comments I made, suggested to other posters that my position was either frivolous, or as I said, ungodly. I would respectfully submit that my posts were neither and I offer the following explanation. With regard to that fuzzy zone to which I referred and what it contains and what it means I would suggest that the contents are images, one a projection of ourselves and the other a reflection of that image. A tremendous conflict occurs ,midway where the projection and the reflection meet. However, since neither is real, i.e. they do not represent “time or space,” they manage somehow to pass through one another. Why, one might rightly ask, is this phenomena ungodly. Because what we see contains elements of both God and Satan.. It has been long established that man is made in the image of God. This would necessarily indicate that, since we each possess some good qualities (God qualities) and some not-so-good qualities (Satan qualities). Thus, we project both good and evil.. . And this is the “made in God's image” concept–whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not. What this means, and this is the ungodly part, is that God and Satan are one and the same! I have never read where Sartre said it in this way, but I think perhaps that is what he was getting at. Omar Khayyam, in The Rubaiyat, came close, toying with the concept when he wrote:
“But helpless pieces in the game He plays
Upon this chequer-board of Nights and Days
He hither and thither moves, and checks... and slays
Then one by one, back in the Closet lays”

Back to the projection/reflection idea and why I suggested that it was not a Kant thing. Since the images, projected and reflected) do not occupy time or space and together they are the inverse of eternity, i.e. they are neither in the past nor are they in the future. They are at the intersection of the past and the future, the present, the here and now. So we have opened a new can of worms. Has this concept of God and Satan being one and the same ever occurred to anyone? What would be its implications? And what about Satan? From where and when did he enter the picture? Did God create Satan, or was Satan here all along–from the beginning of time? Let me hasten to point out that it is not my purpose to put down religion. I sincerely believe it to be a valid matter worthy of consideration by all. Did God create Satan for His own amusement, a competitor with whom he could “.. . Play upon this chequered-board of Nights and Days?” As TUT317 might say, Hmmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsUp2Me

Did God create Satan for His own amusement, a competitor with whom he could “. . . play upon this chequered-board of Nights and Days?”

---

Or did man create Satan as a scapegoat in order to avoid his own moral responsibilities? God created only good. Did man's wish to be like God, man's arrogance, also birth Satan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsUp2Me

It has been long established that man is made in the image of God.

---

Uh no. That's not philosophy or science, that's a religious belief.

Strange, when I post under philosophy I am told my question is not philosophy but religion. But when I post under religion I am told it should be posted under philosophy. Do you suppose there is such a thing as religious philosophy, or perhaps it might be called philosophical religion?
Actually I am not attempting to deal with a belief. What I propose to do is explore ideas. I have done this by posing questions and suggesting unusual concepts. And speaking of unusual concepts (religious), your tan soul cat certainly deserves some consideration along these lines. Touché.

Hello ItsUp2Me,

Your ideas sound very original and interesting. I would just like to work my way through your explanations to see if am understanding them correctly.

Firstly, are you saying that the "fuzzy" side of Alpha to Omega is the,"dark side" or the "ungodly" side?

Secondly, Is this "dark fuzzy" side something we recognize in our nature?

Thirdly, are you saying that Alpha to Omega and the "fuzzy side" are both not real, or not completely knowable?

In regards to my third question. If your answer to my third question is, "yes" then I can see where your existentialist explanation comes in.

Existentialist philosophers tend to disagree with each other, but there is a basic underlying theme. Sartre in his novel "Nausea" makes his main character seriously question the nature of the world he lives in.This questioning is bought on by the complete dissatisfaction with the arbitrary way he has organized his life.

All that he is left with is complete confusion and contempt with what appears to be an inescapable existence. The act of rejecting all of this in favor of becoming a free agent turns out to be a terrifying experience because there is also a realization that he is permanently burdened with the consequences of his decision making.

As to the general existentialist question, " how are we to live in this meaningless world?' Well, that depends on the existentialist philosopher.

Dear TUT317,

In my earlier conspectus the fuzzy side of Alpha and Omega, is the present. It is the point where I have suggested that perhaps God and Satan are one and the same. My reference to ungodly has shaped-up to be a description of myself, at least that seems to be the way everyone, except perhaps you, has responded to my suggestion. Everyone seems to find the very idea to be abhorrent, and none so far except you will even discuss the matter.

To your second question, is this something we recognize in our nature: I am not sure. It may be that we have somehow subconsciously know it was there but our consciousness would not allow us to bring it to the surface for examination. I need to give more thought to this.

And finally, to your third question: My existentialist explanation may be somewhat premature, for, in truth, I can not say, nor do I think I will ever be able to say with any degree of certainty that God and Satan are the same. By the same token, neither can I say with any degree of certainty that they are not. This is the reason I have come to this forum, with the hope that people who are wiser than me can be of help. I went out on that tangent, the metaphoric platform, in an attempt to draw some input from the Existentialist out there who may have some views along these lines. So far I have drawn a blank.
_______
ItsUp2Me

Hi ItsUp2Me,

In regards to your theory about God and Satan being two sides of the one coin so to speak. As far as I can recall I don't think I have seen it in Western philosophy.

Nonetheless, it is possible to argue that line of reasoning. There are many other examples in philosophy of what is know as,' Identity Theory' . Basically identity theory attempts to do what you are trying to do. That is explain how two apparently distinct and completely different entities exist in the one thing or person.

If you are not familiar with identity theories then I would suggest Plato's, "Theory of Forms" is a good starting point and work your way along the different philosophies until modern times. Don't worry about, Plato's "Third Man Argument" when you come across it, you can also go back to it at a latter date.

If I can help clarify anything just let me know.

Thanks, TUT317. I will take a look at Plato's, "Theory of Forms."
_______
ItsUp2Me

Hello ItsUp2Me,

Curiosity has got the better of me. From your posts it seems that you are very familiar with scripture. I was wondering why you have decided to explore non-traditional theology.
This is not a criticism. Are you unhappy with traditional interpretations?

Regards
Tut

Hi Tut,
An answer to your question would invovle a rather long and personal response. If we could exchange addresses, either email or snailmail, I would be happy to share my story with you. I do not wish to reveal my address on this public forum, for I do not want to receive a flood of attempts to "put me straight" on my thinking. If you will send me an address at ItsUp2Who.me_ya @yahoo.com, I will get back to you. This address is one I use but rarely and mainly for information on issues that I wish only a one-time response.
________
ItsUp2Me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsUp2Me

Hi Tut,
An answer to your question would invovle a rather long and personal response. If we could exchange addresses, either email or snailmail, I would be happy to share my story with you. I do not wish to reveal my address on this public forum, for I do not want to receive a flood of attempts to "put me straight" on my thinking. If you will send me an address at ItsUp2Who.me_ya @yahoo.com, I will get back to you. This address is one I use but rarely and mainly for information on issues that I wish only a one-time response. (I am re-sending to clearify the address I gave.
__________
ItsUp2Me

---

\|

G-d, I sympathise TUT, well done for trying. O.K, alpha, omega. Define them. Beginning of what? End of what? These terms only have meaning when we apply them to something. To simply say "the beginning" has no meaning at all.

Also, Kantain philosophy takes on a whole new meaning when viewed through the lense of current understanding. We know now that space is not infinite, a luxury that Kant did not have, nor Wittgenstein. What does this say of time? We know they are dependent, time is a measure of change, change can only happen in space. At one time the universe will stop, all change will stop, and so will time, and so will all possible experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tokugawa

and so will all possible experience.

---

Or will it? Define experience. Is it bound by time?

Quote:

---

Define experience. Is it bound by time?

---

Yes, you cannot experience something, without a time during which you have experienced it.

Someone mentioned "forms" before, this quote from Wittgenstein helped me to understand what we should like it to mean.

"Objects contain the possibilty of all situations. The possibilty of it's occuring in states of affairs is the form of an object."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tokugawa

Yes, you cannot experience something, without a time during which you have experienced it.

---

You say that only because you have never been outside of time. Once you have been outside of time and find what you say is true, let me know and I will accept your conclusion. Meanwhile, you don't know.