3DOP

I was thinking about Dario today! People come and go. It seems like many have gone. I thought you might be one of those, Dario. Anyway Dario, what is on your mind?

Navidad, For what it is worth, LDS who are familiar with Ostler have seemed to me, in my limited experience, to be much more understanding and less dismissive about my belief in an unchanging God.

Thanks Tony. I will be praying for you as well. Teddy hi. Do you recommend the same calisthenics every day? Is your six day the same every day? I don't know if my knees could handle deep squats. I know you are not a therapist, and I'll do more research, but would you recommend going down as far as my knees permit, or would some other substitute accomplish the same thing? Thanks

I have a friend about my age, 70, who happily mentioned that he broke a personal record on "the elliptical", (whatever that is) of burning over 600 calories in either a half hour or an hour. When it isn't religion or sports, we talk fitness. I retired over a year ago and have put on weight. I have started walking, and like Teddy, my friend says that we need more. I don't think it is realistic to do an elliptical. I just want to see my grandkids grow up, and not die early because I have abused the Lord's temple. I have returned one notch on my belt. I have a way to go and we can do it. I am only walking regularly and fasting one or two days a week. I count mowing my overgrown big lawn as a walking day too. I am looking for some reasonable way to start with the goal of feeling like Teddy and my friend do...after 70. I know God gave us bodies that endure a lot of mistreatment, and have amazing recuperative responses as well. I think I need to add some form of resistance training like Teddy said. Let us begin by being encouraged. Not waiting, figuring out the right way to start to add what's needed to what we are already doing. I don't recommend the 36 hour Friday or Wednesday fasts that I try to practice, unless you know how to break that long fast. But the benefit is great. I chose those days as a Catholic because they have become a custom over the centuries, as it corresponds with the betrayal of our Lord on Wednesday and His Passion on Friday. We can offer up our fasts to the Lord as a spiritual penance as well as pleasing Him with taking regard for "our body" which he gives to us as "His temple" to glorify Him. But Catholics should not fast unless we feast! After 1st Vespers for Sunday around five, Saturday evening, we can enjoy a special beverage, and on Sunday as well, with our best healthy feast of the week. With a freely chosen resolution, we can rejoice in every waking hour of the next week as we do our physical and spiritual exercises, which support each other. We are encouraged by our knowledge that if we keep our resolutions until the Vigil on Saturday, we will rejoice more than ever as we restfully enjoy the Sunday feast, the Day of the Lord. The above is my ideal. I don't always make it. Pray for me, Tony. We can help each other! God bless. Rory

Excellent webbles! Thanks.

I have already replied to the first paragraph, and leave it now for context. Maybe someone else that is LDS might want to try to answer the second paragraph for BlipBlap? The Catholics here have obviously gotten off on the wrong foot with this person. Maybe she/he would listen if it was explained by a non-Catholic at least, or better, a Latter-day Saint. I might suggest that you look up the meaning of consubstantial according to Catholic theology. Then go to the Vatican web page for the Council of Chalcedon and find what it says about who Jesus is consubstantial with. Combine that with what Catholics mean by the hypostatic union and there is our answer. It doesn't prove anything against the LDS position. It just shows that we are consistent with our own beliefs, contrary to what BlipBlap wants to think. No obligations obviously! I have never seen anything like this around here. In a way it has been fun, but it also brings out the worst in me. I waited almost a week before an earlier post to BlipBlap because my opinion of her/him was so negative that I could feel some malice stirring. But now it is just getting distasteful. Pray for me. I have to love everybody here. I may have mentioned this before. But one of my favorite quotes from our last Council is paraphrased "Through His Incarnation, Christ has, in a certain sense, united Himself with every man." Pray that I may be true to that belief. I will reply later if anyone else expresses curiosity about anything she/he has raised. But I will consider myself relieved from any further fruitless interaction with BlipBlap, for the sake of my own soul. I am sorry BlipBlap. I should have more love and patience. I truly wish you every grace and heavenly blessing in this world and in the next. I do. God make us be friends in heaven. God love you. Rory McKenzie

At our parish, we try to have adoration of the Blessed Sacrament 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This means that someone volunteers to keep our Savior company as He shows Himself in His chapel under the appearance of consecrated bread for each of the 168 hours of every week. I think most of us do it once a week. That is what I do. My hour is 3:00 every Wednesday morning. It seems like the least I can do as a retired guy who can grab a nap any time almost every day. One main idea behind this practice is to remember how it seemed like Jesus desired fellow company with some of His Apostles during His agony in the Garden. The Heart of Jesus is unfathomable. He doesn't need us...and yet He expresses these desires for us. Before the Last Supper, wherein Catholics believe that Christ celebrates the first Mass He says, "With desire I have desired..." What? I guess that means He wants to do this thing with an intensity that we might find hard to relate to? "...to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." (Luke 22:15) This is why the Mass is also named the Paschal (Passover) Mystery. The time went so quickly this morning. I could not get over the idea of God who creates out of nothing is about six feet away, out in the open, easy to see. The same eternal God has been waiting for me this morning in this humble manner, so unimposing? There is a natural doubt that man can attain to a union with a Being so far above us. I understand the appeal of God being a man. But I also understand the appeal of God being infinitely more. The Incarnation of Christ gives us both. One author puts it this way speaking of Christ assuming our nature: "...it strengthens our hope all the more since it brings the excellence of our nature home to our consciousness, and shows us that we, elevated as we are above all creatures, can and ought to achieve perfect happiness in closest union with God." ---The Mysteries of Christianity, Matthias Scheeben, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, MO (1947), p.417 Sometimes my differences of opinion with my LDS friends can make me ponder delightful beliefs, as happened this morning in pondering over again some of the beliefs that we agree upon and those we don't. At the end of my hour, I was thinking about how different it might be if mfb were here. I might be frustrated, but I miss him very much. I hope Mark is okay. He made me think so much harder than I ever would have without his opposition to my transcendent God. I would be happy if he could poke his head in here, and offer his misgivings...and then I would probably get angry! Heh. May the good Lord bless our absent, but well remembered friend/adversary Mark Bukowski, and may God draw him to his His loving heart, even if God created ex nihilo. Yeah, I know Mark, it doesn't make sense unless God has a heart. (I am speak anthropomorphically. Of course. That is the only way we know how to express ourselves, and that is why God speaks to us that way too, Mark!) Sorry for taking the last word, my friend. I know you would have more to say.

Okay. Much appreciated.

God existed eternally, unlike Creation, which marks the beginning of time. God is One, but God is also Three, in a different sense. God would not be the only one. There would be two others Persons who have the same divine nature as the Father. If God is omnipresent, there is nothing that can surround God for Him to be inside of. This would go back to what was said above about "Him who the worlds could not contain, was contained in the womb of the Blessed Virgin." As man, the person of Christ was contained. As God, the Person of Christ, made Mary the Mother of a Person who was unbounded Existence, God. I understand you saying "Hmmmm". How? Why? Why is there something instead of nothing? The fact of existence is an amazing mystery. Maybe an eternal God has something to do with it? I apologize for saying this poorly. Of course you are welcome to explain a different understanding of why there is anything. Like, why would matter exist before God made it? Maybe we should worship matter if God depends on it or else He wouldn't exist? Hmmmmm. You very much agree that the Father won't mind if we overestimate what He is. I am not infallible. I am not even a philosopher. I believe the most that I can possibly believe about God. There is a passage in the Psalms where the Israelites were chided for doubting that God could provide for them in the wilderness, and it seems like He was insulted (anthropomorphically speaking). With God all things are possible, or maybe not ALL things? Why must we doubt that God could create matter out of nothing? Why Is that flawed speculation for the presence of matter? Why do we have to believe that nobody made matter? It strikes me as impersonal and without purpose. Does that make any sense? What if God can make matter out of nothing? Maybe it would be an insult (anthropomorphically speaking)? The universe is already a mind blowing place anyway. Why limit God? For religious reasons, I instinctively want two P's. #1) A Person, #2) A Purpose. I can't worship in a universe that doesn't begin with at least a Person and a Purpose. Creation ex nihilo has provided that. I can't go back on that without losing my religion. So I am biased. Maybe I am not objective. If it is about the problem of evil, God will exonerate Himself or not someday. I am not worried about that. I believe we will all see that God brings good out of evil. What is evil? It is a defect of what is good. It is a cleft palate. It is immorality and strife with neighbors and selfishness. But all of these evils involve good natures. They are negatives. Evil is not positive. It isn't a thing, but the lack of a thing. Evil is in a sense, less than nothing, a negative, a corruption of the good, and God intends to bring good out of that! How much more then should it be possible that we should believe that God can bring good (matter for instance), out of pure neutrality, mere nothingness? Nothingness is so much better than evil! Maybe I should just erase this whole thing calm? I know you will be nice though even if it seems ridiculous to you. I don't know what else to say right now. God bless, Rory

Well BlipBlap. I am afraid that I can hardly agree with anything you have been saying. (there IS one thing I almost agree with in the paragraph I quote above, except that you think it is some kind of an argument against my position). The problem is that it seems like you have little understanding of what we believe. Let me respectfully try to explain. 1) Your first clause above is about the belief that God is not a man. Do you think that for 1,700 years we "Niceans" haven't given any thought to what it means for a material creature to be made in God's image? When asked whether it was lawful to render tribute to Caesar, Jesus asked for a coin. Then he asked them whose image was on the coin, and the answer of course, was Caesar. The point I am making is that the coin was made in Caesar's image. Does that mean that Caesar is a coin? Given that there are Scriptures where God says He is not a man, (you can look them up BlipBlap) we think that just as we believe that Caesar is not a coin, we have reason to believe that God is not necessarily human. Catholic Niceans teach that only the Son is the perfect image of the Father. We privileged creatures, made out of matter, are however also made, to a lesser degree than God's only begotten Son, in God's image, imperfectly. Still, what a magnificent dignity has been bestowed upon every human being! It comes with a weighty responsibility though. Unlike the rest of the material creation, we are free. In God's wisdom and love He has made us alone able to exercise freedom of the will. Every other material creature obeys the law of its nature. Every mineral, vegetable, and animal in material creation "obeys" the law of its own given nature, giving glory to its Creator. It is given to man alone to use his reason to discern the physical actions and mental exercises that befit what we are, created children of the Almighty God of heaven and earth. We use God's image in us reasonably to His glory, and our beatification. But we are capable of misuse too. 2) Next, you make an assertion that is easily refuted when you say that when the Son becomes man, it means that God changed. No, He who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, condescended to take on Himself the nature of a servant, and for our sakes became man. That does not mean he stopped being God! The divine nature of the Son was neither enhanced nor diminished when he assumed human form in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He was still the unchanging God! It doesn't seem like you are familiar with the way Catholics, at least, see and understand the marvel of the Incarnation. During Advent, just before Christmas, the Church reminds us of the stupendous and sublime inference of the Incarnation of the Son. We are asked to remember that "He who the worlds could not contain was contained within the womb of His Blessed Mother". Just ponder that! As a man, Jesus lived in His mother's belly like any other human child. But He was still God, no change at all! We like it a lot. It is wonderful. It prefigures the Holy Eucharist when we take God into our own flesh, and He really lives in us body and blood, soul and divinity. (what about His Mother who carries Him for NINE MONTHS?) He Who gives us Himself as our food? It is not so we will assimilate Him, like what happens when we have a piece of toast in the morning. Rather, he assimilates us! He doesn't change. We become more and more and more made in the likeness of His perfect image of the Father, so often as we can lawfully receive Him in Holy Communion! 3) I am running out of time today. I'll try to be quick, on what we somewhat agree about. You say that the way we understand the Incarnation would mean that the Son of God is created. We almost agree.. The Son of Man IS created. The 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, who becomes man, is and always will be God, uncreated. Regarding the manhood of Christ, we affirm the Scripture where it revealed that the Son is "the firstborn among many creatures". (Not chronologically, but in excellence and dignity) And yeah, the body was created when Mary, the New Eve, agreed to be Mother of God: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word." The faith is so beautiful. It is beyond suitable description. One should only laugh, or cry, (or both!) with tears or shouts of joy at the wonderful truths we say we believe. I think next up is the hypostatic union. You mention that later on. But its meaning is important here too, especially with the third clause we have discussed. God bless you BlipBlap. I hope this helps.

Maybe so InCognitis. I don't claim that my position is without any problems to be solved.

Hi calm. I don't want to reduce anything to total understanding. We have mystery. So do you. The main thing I was saying is that BlipBlap was presenting a syllogism that was based on a faulty presupposition that nobody pretends to defend...a complete strawman.

Hi calm. Ex nihilo literally means "ex" out, as in going out of Egypt. Exodus. Nihilo means literaly..."nothing". We profess and believe that God created the world, without any antecedent matter, or spirit, "out" of nothing. No greater accomplishment is conceivable. That is our faith. It doesn't seem like a loving Father should be too upset with us for overestimating His powers...if we have done so. Does that make any sense? We approach these ideas from vastly different paradigms. God love you. 3DOP

So good to see you Jesse. Happy 20th Sunday in Ordinary time, and 12th after Pentecost. We probably won't meet in this life. But we are sure we will if neither of us falters. God save us both.

No BlipBlap. That does not follow because we reject the absolute materialist precept that if there was a God, God's mind would be material. Your argument begins with a false supposition. Even our minds are immaterial. Unlike God, we cannot make matter with a word. But like God, our thoughts and words are immaterial. They don't have physical properties. Our rational faculty is unique in creation. Our ability, like God, to entertain immaterial ideas and concepts are Godlike faculties. Thus, we are made in His image, unlike the irrational creation. That is why we, unlike the irrational creation possess the potential by God's grace to partake of His very nature through His Son who is now like us, an amalgam of matter and spirit, the God-Man. What wonderful good news to learn what can become of us! We cannot help what materialists believe. But we must insist that materialists grant us our own presuppositions if they are trying to disprove our beliefs.

Hey Tony. You make a good point. It may be a phenomenon of the American Mountain West. But so far, it hasn't been established that "such" is a singular linguistic phenomenon.

I have been curious for years about a linguistic phenomenon that seems limited to English speaking LDS in your common usage of the word "such". Is "such" a valid observation? Or is "that" a valid observation? I cannot recall a non-LDS use "such" the way you guys do. I always know what is meant, but I am wondering if anyone else has noticed "such"? Slow day on the board...

Hi again BlipBlap, Thank you for your prompt and concise reply. For the record, if you can convince me that the Catholic Church is apostate, I would consider the CoJCoLDS as one of the few contenders for the one true church with valid priestly orders. That is why I have been here for almost 22 years on the internet and at ZLMB (a prior LDS site that many of your fellow LDS came from) for another five. Alas, I seem a hopeless case. I was 43 when I started. So far, I must have seen most of the arguments against the positive LDS teaching. My thoughts always lead me back to the Apostasy. I know that the NIcene Creed and Catholic doctrine is compatible with Scripture and the history of revelation. However, I grant that I have always found myself sympathetic to the LDS apologist when the "anti-Mormon" was attacking. Thankfully, as I see it, my Catholic faith is not dependent on a negative evaluation of LDS claims. With the exception of when it may have touched upon Catholic beliefs, I learned to take for granted that the Latter-day-Saint answers his critics well. I haven't paid much attention to that anti-LDS stuff though for at least a decade. As I said, I pretty much assume that the LDS are continuing to answer their critics. Besides, until last year, I was always working 50 to 60 hours driving truck, and then as a factory hand. Now I am finally 70 and happily retired. I wanted to introduce myself and let you know that I have great respect for you and your fellow LDS here, who I am pleased to designate as my internet friends. As friendly as one can be in the virtual world. -------- My plan is to try to reply as time allows to try to make a brief reply to each of your critiques in defense of the Catholic faith, and to show why I am unconvinced by your argument. Here we go. I never intended to suggested that all the Hebrews held to creatio ex nihilo at the beginning of revelation history. What I said was the following: "God reveals Himself little by little over the centuries." The resurrection of the body among many other revelations that came later, did not appear at once as mainstream Jewish thought. Even by the times of Christ, the Sadducees doubted the teaching, who undoubtedly cited many of the older Scriptures, which pointed to Sheol as a place for all the dead, probably worse for some than others, but nevertheless, always inferior to this life. The Sadducees had older Scriptures to back them up. But there were other writings that seemed authentic to the more progressive among the Jews, and if they were uncanonized before Christ, they left their influence. The deutero-canonical books are without doubt of Hebrew origin, and began to influence Hebrew thought. The Book of Daniel, which is usually dated from the 2nd Century B.C, in 12:2, also gives an later clear revelation of the resurrection of the body. Whenever it made it into the Hebrew canon, the Sadducees were unconvinced. But the doctrine would little by little become more and more acceptable to Orthodox Jews. As you say, the best example I have for ex nihilo is in 2 Maccabees 7. You make the perhaps valid complaint that the authorship of this book is "hardly ancient and modern Judaism", because of its later authorship and its non-canonical status? I would not argue that creatio ex nihilo is as early as the teaching that God is not a human being which appears earlier. I apologize for any confusion. By ancient, I meant pre-Christian. I should have been clearer. What I wished to emphasize is the following, where I wrote: "Two truths that were revealed to the Hebrews by the time of Christ..." I then cite the two root doctrines which will always cause an impasse if trying to reconcile mainstream Christian and LDS doctrine. I hope we both agree that later revelations clarify past revelations. It would appear from the development of Jewish theology in the Christian era that many Jews accepted both of these beliefs that are contested by Latter-day Saints. I would suppose that you should find this even more puzzling. Most Orthodox Jewish theology retains creatio ex nihilo WITHOUT canonizing 2 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees gives us the clearest idea of God creating out of nothing, and for Catholic and Orthodox theology, it is canonical. I have never studied Hebrew and have always accepted the uncontested view that Genesis 1, speaks of pre-existent matter in chaos. I am not convinced that this disproves the tradition of my Church, which agrees with most Christians and Jews who have come to believe nothing exists before God. He could have created matter and then formed it. But I agree that Genesis only talks about the formation. The Greek Septuagint began to have a lively influence on Jewish thinking a hundred years before Maccabees. For Christians, the later belief in God as creator of matter, might also be argued from the fact that the authors of the New Testament so frequently cite the Old Testament Septuagint. I understand that Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the passage where God gives his name to Moses at the burning bush. The Hebrew is said to be translated into Greek, rendered in our language, as "I Am". A peculiar name. pointing perhaps to the idea of God as "pure existence"? Interestingly enough, you surely have seen where in the Gospel of John, Jesus Himself says, Before Abraham was I...Was? No. Before Abraham was, "I am". That same odd usage. As in Exodus, maybe Jesus was making a deeper, ontological point about His existence, along with His being older than Abraham. Sorry about the mixup on ancient and modern. Ancient Judaism seems closer to LDS thinking on both God as a human and creation out of matter not of God's making. I don't have a problem admitting that. Maybe you can see why I am nevertheless believing that a more perfect revelation followed. In those times they seemed to also believe that the world was sitting on a number of big pillars that was sitting on top of who knows what? I think we have reason to question if the most ancient teachings are necessarily the most accurate. Wow, that took a long time. It is time for a cup of that black juice that our Church permits. Don't worry. I can give up coffee is there was an apostasy! Heh. Regards, 3DOP

Hello Blip Blap, and welcome. I am glad you have respect for the Hebrews. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Old Testament Hebrews should have known about the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. God reveals Himself little by little over the centuries. Two truths that were revealed to the Hebrews by the time of Christ are first, that God created the world out of nothing. The other essential truth that was revealed to the Hebrews is that whatever God is, He is not a man. Of course, we see in Christian times the glorious truth that for our sakes, God the Son became a man. And THAT was a big problem for the Jews. I am not going to argue about Bible verses. But rather I will point out that Catholics are within the Hebrew tradition regarding both of these teachings, which along with the New Testament informed the Fathers of the Council of Nicea. Nicea is a mere development. The root of our inability to agree with the Latter-day Saints is not from Nicea, it is from orthodox Judaism, both ancient and modern. Why did they crucify our Lord? Did it not have something to do with Him being clearly a man, He claimed to be God? "We are not stoning you for any good work...but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

My only point was that I found your description to be comical. If you think I was being unjust in trying to be lightly critical of a description of Catholic teaching that was so vague that I had no idea you were talking about limbo, I am amazed. You are a seasoned member here who I respect, and I thought you underperformed, in a way that made me laugh. I thought you might chuckle with me!

So in our times, a Catholic wisely believes that unbaptised believers and babies are "stuck" and "temporarily doomed"? So what do we say will happen while being "stuck" that could change the situation for the better? We teach that they do not know how or when, but are confident that something we do not understand will make God have mercy at some point in the far or near future? In other words, we wisely don't know what we are talking about! You gotta tell us, if we are that stupid today, what kind of nonsense did Catholics believe before we made our "wisely long retraction"? Hehe Pyreaux, not to be difficult, but I have seen much better work from you than that! God bless...and thanks for the laugh! Regards, 3DOP

So many favorite scenes. When the technical guys had to make a filter with scraps? "We gotta make a filter to fit this using nothing but that."

I wrote a detailed answer, and God's will be done, for no apparent reason, I was transferred to some thread from 2023. When I came back, my words were lost. I haven't the heart, if I had the time to reconstruct it. Let me just thank you for your respectful reply. Regards, Rory

InCog, hi. Don't be so sola scriptura. We ex nihilists still believe we are made in God's image. We have read the Book of Acts too! We also believe we are His "offspring". I think I understand the LDS feeling of poignant intimacy with a God in every way like us, except He is a grownup. Those of you who are immersed in pondering this concept are delighted and thrilled with it. Please be assured that those of us who believe that a transcendent God, for no selfish reasons, created us corporately and individually out of nothing, while sending His beloved Son, like Him, transcendent, to save us, to become one of us, our mediator, uncreated Being to unite Himself for our sakes to become created? To be our friend, and brother, is no less magnificent, delightful to the heart, and thrilling. I don't think it is unfair to propose that many LDS have learned to believe that creation out of nothing implies ideas that seem repugnant. The reverse is also true for me and my tribe. Before we can argue about which is the true reality, we have to admit that both sides are appealing in their own ways. Unless we admit this, there cannot, in my opinion, be much fruitful discussion.

Hi manol. I have to take issue. Jesus is the "Lamb of God" slain from the foundation of the world. That hearkens back of course, to the Paschal Sacrifice in Exodus. Out of the first 128 verses where the word "sacrifice" occurs, one is from Genesis (Abraham and Isaac). One hundred and twenty three are from Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Four are from Deuteronomy. Almost all of the discussion about about animal sacrifice is found in the middle three books of the Pentateuch. One of the two in Deuteronomy appears to make reference to animal sacrifice, one is about making sure to share the best part of the sacrifice with the priests, and I am think that the last one wasn't about animal sacrifice at all. Our canonical Scriptures don't have anything significant to say in Deuteronomy either. Regards, Rory