I think you might be interested in the following thread, especially the last 50 comments or so:

Ostler’s “Compassion Theory of Atonement�
New Cool Thang, April 12, 2006
http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/ostlers-atonement-theory/232/

The issue under discussion is the termporal and causal aspects of the atonement. My position is that the Lord does not suffer when we repent, but that he suffers according to the immediate natural consequences of sin and infirmity, in his effort to sustain us spiritually so that we do not suffer (spiritual) death. The judicial-legal justice / mercy regime is a system that is legitimated because of his suffering, but not the cause thereof, the purpose of course to turn us away from our sins, so that we may be worthy of an eternal inheritance. God is not a debtor to a law higher than he is. His obligations are to his children, taken upon himself of his own accord, and not imposed by an outside agency.

If Christ suffered for each of our sins, pains, illnesses, and sorrows individually when He worked out the atonement, do I lessen the pain He (would have) felt then when I refrain now from a sin I would have committed? If so, His statement that if we love Him, we’ll keep His commandments assumes a personal meaning: “I will suffer the penalty of your sins for you because I love you, but if you love me, you won’t create the penalty for me to suffer for you.” Likewise, do we lessen His atoning pains when we lessen someone else’s despair or sorrow for which He (would have) suffered? “When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God” and “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me / Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me” indeed!

In a time-less eternal perspective in which all things — past, present, and future — are co-existent, our sins and refrainings from sin would have a co-incident effect on His price to atone for us.

re comment #14–

Eye hath not seen; ear hath not heard; nor has yet entered into the heart of man…etc.

According to Paul it seems that there are more “possibilities.” Now whether or not those possibilities include more “dimensions” I cannot say.

re your first paragraph–’sound’s like your talking about mortality rather than time. Yes time becomes crucial when we’re faced with certain death, but if there were no death or decay then time would march to a different tune.

To Jim, you said, “how do we make truth claims about what we cannot comprehend?” I can’t help myself. We turn to mathematics. (LOL) Seriously though I don’t think any physicist would say they comprehend quantum mechanics. (At least not when they are being honest) But we regularly make claims even if they defy our ability to comprehend. I think just how unfathomable the universe is was much more prominent decades ago. We’ve become used to it and in a way numb to just how unlike our regular world the underlying reality it. As Feynman said, don’t try to understand it. It’s an abyss no one escapes from.

I don’t see that anything in my comment or the discussion that was invited by the original post requires that I prove anything I said. String theory is a pretty iffy field. But it seemed OK to me since I thought we were all pretty-much B.S.-ing here anyway. Right?