3DOP

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

Unfortunately for us, we can't wiggle out that way. And I would urge that difficulties abound, and we have to try to resolve them before we would declare something in our canons to be in irresolvable conflict. As a Latter-day Saint, I would at least wait for a Latter-day revelation to say any specific teaching is erroneous. Otherwise, we would have all kinds of teachings being rejected from both Testaments. How can a virgin have a child? How are we going to be resurrected with the same body when our original molecules are scattered all over creation? Ad nauseam. But of course, with care, I have to grant the LDS have a mechanism by which you could say the passage is fallible, or uninspired (not speaking as a prophet)

Hi Orthodox Christian, I am for shelving these concerns. We have to not expect to find an answer that will satisfy everyone. Many take solace in rejecting Christianity because of passages like those to which you are referring. I have been looking for answers that partially satisfy me. This week, the first reading at Mass is taken from the Book of Wisdom 12. It is a defense of God against what you describe as happening to the Amalekites. In Acts 13:19, St. Paul mentions that the Israelites destroyed seven nations in the course of gaining possession of the Promised Land. There is no hint of divine displeasure at the thoroughness of the task in that New Testament text. Wisdom 12 sheds abundant light on the truly wicked, and safe to say, demonic practices of these nations. The author also shows that judgment did not come upon this people suddenly and all at once, but gradually, with time for repentance. That is about as far as it goes. But it shows that this question you ask was already being discussed in the centuries before Christ. Establishing that God gave these nations opportunities for repentance, we can be confident that if upon seeing the Israelites approach, had they repented like the Ninevites at the preaching of Jonah, mercy would have been granted. Perhaps repentance came too late to be saved from earthly destruction. I have hope that among the redeemed in heaven will be children, women, and warriors who were slain among these nations, and that they will be praising God eternally for saving them from their sins, just like the rest of the saints in heaven. Wisdom 12 is very strong as are many other passages in both Testaments warning that no one need worry about whether God is righteous when He is judged. He doesn't seem obliged to give a complete account at this time. I think it could be argued that the Son's life, passion, and death should be enough to make it reasonable to trust in God's wisdom and goodness? Will we turn away in this life because we have judged this God to be evil before we see the fruit of what He was doing? Many do, and many will. I am putting it on the shelf, awaiting further revelation. This will come at the Day of Judgment. It isn't God's raw power alone that will cause souls to bend the knee before their Maker. They will not be fearing a God that has a blemished record. They will be loving a God who has shown them His superabundant goodness, mercy, grace, and love for every soul that has ever been conceived. That is my faith. I admit that I am only partially satisfied with this answer. I look forward to seeing more of an answer, even in this life, but certainly the next. Certainly the New Testament opens up our eyes to the idea that everyone is a brother. There is that passage from our Lord where, I paraphrase Him saying, "You have heard it said to love your friends and hate your enemies, but I say..." Jesus definitely gave the Christians a different eye with which to view our enemies. Other teachings in the Old Testament are not corrected, or properly developed until the New. The Ten Commandments do teach love, according to St. Paul in Romans. And the Good Samaritan who was more in the dark than a levite and a priest, will get his reward because he obeyed the law of his conscience and took pity on the man at the side of the road. All will be judged according to our consciences, including Amalekites. Who besides God could untangle the varying factors of every generation and every individual since our first parents? Let us take courage and be at peace, and not be precipitate enough to think God can't explain what happened with the Amalekites, if we will be patient.

Most LDS, here at least, would not be surprised to hear that Catholics are not even required to believe in any private revelation. Obedience though? That is way beyond being out of "left field" and into lunar orbit.

I stopped reading with "All Catholics are required to obey LaSallette."

The Nehor. You are as uncomprising a fellow as any fundamentalist for their position. I thank you for your criticisms with your single approbation. Your friend (albeit internet), 3DOP A friend as one who reveals himself to the other, and who genuinely wishes his friend only good...and in your case expects a shitload of criticism. God bless you, you *****.

Webbles. Hey. I cannot worship another like myself if it is only because He, or he, is the most intelligent. You may not have framed it the way your relative would have. Still, I can't picture myself in adoration at the smartest kid in the class. Maybe there is another way to adore Him? It certainly speaks well of him to turn to the rest of us dummies with a plan. I could love a loving friend before I could worship a fellow creature with the highest I.Q. God help us who have "gone back and forth". I am your fellow pilgrim. Rory, who goes back and forth too.

Even In the Old Testament, God used marital imagery to accuse His people of infidelity, of adultery. In the New Testament, the same continues, not so obviously when Jesus speaks to those of us who feel weary and heavy-laden: "Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light". [Matthew 11:30] A yoke of oxen are two animals pulling in the same way, like a marriage, which uses the same Greek word translated as yoke, for oxen in a team, as for marriage. I know my prayers and worship are imperfect. Maybe I go in and out of the yoke? I am thinking that is the problem. It is a problem of trust and immolation of the will before God. St. Paul calls on us to "offer up our bodies a living sacrifice"! Then he calls it "a reasonable service". (Rom. 12:1 and 2) Only if we are perfectly yoked. This is the hard part. It doesn't seem like it will make me happy. I don't completely believe this yoke is sweet. If I believed it, I would be meek and obedient to the Father (like Jesus). And I would be in the yoke I have the same sense as many of you that I should be habitually able to have a fervent and satisfying intimacy with God. I have to immolate my soul and body in offering them to God for His service, trusting that it will be sweet to do so. It is a gift from God when we have a sense of dissatisfaction over our not so profound efforts at being intimate with God. It is Jesus knocking on our doors seeking entry. We need to believe that the same one who we truly believe in as our Lord and God, still loves us while we are in "sleep mode"! We might think God is not happy with us, maybe He will be punishing us for our little or large infidelities. Not if He can help it! He wants to always forgive us. Maybe it helps to realize our misery through a deep sense of unworthiness, before we can appreciate that God would after all this, still knock, seeking entry. Anyway, fervent prayer and more perfect worship are rewards that Christ must withhold in varying degrees from us who are imperfectly yoked. He withholds while making us aware of them as part of the package of the joy that is set before us. By bashing a little on methods in my last post, I meant that preeminently, before we find what "works" according to our differing states of life, we must be properly disposed for an appropriate intimacy with a neighbour, a friend, a spouse, or God. If we have the disposition, the method, maybe perfectly suited to our unique relationships and situations, should take care of itself. Love will find a way. We need to believe in...LOVE, especially the love that comes from God...and potentially from us too! Those rivers of living water flowing out of our bellies.

Hey all, I didn't expect to comment again at such an early "tomorrow". We had an electrical storm go through which woke me up. I am not wired (up for the night), but remembering to salute our beloved Lord, (albeit not first as it should be), here I am already, having also had a cheese sandwich and a shot of vodka. (Vodka is hard on the liver I am told, on an empty stomach). Like love and marriage, one can't have the one without the other? So yeah, The N., I took note yesterday of your reasonable questioning about analogical problems with including our relations with God similarly with other persons. I thought I was being original with my "theory" from p. 43 of the future pope's book. But after I woke this morning, I immediately went to MMDB for any developments. Then came the sandwich, the shot, going outside to the front porch to experience the storm...and remembering I hadn't properly saluted our good and loving God. I took care of that, thanked him for my physical sustenance, and found that after kicking a speedy spider that had been on top of my flip-flopped foot, I was only one among God's dear creatures to seek refuge under my porch roof from the storm. I decided to give to those creatures my refuge from the downpour. They had no malice, crawling on me instinctually, not with any freedom of will. Bugs aren't meant for persons to enjoy I suppose. But it is irrational to despise them. Besides the speedy spider, which I also unfortunately crushed, there was also some other tiny, dark, unidentifiable thing, which when similarly smashed, left a white, creamy substance on my forearm. Anyway, I have finished my repast in relative peace indoors. I fear my nocturnal activities might have disturbed my own wife's sleep. I will endeavor to discover in a daylight hour if this has been the case, and make amends. So anyway, enough dramatic biographical data, and stream of consciousness (?), if I understand what that means. I shall try to be more scientific and less focused upon me. I have turned back to reread, accidentally p. 42. I thought it was p. 44 in the next chapter!!! Hah. I see that a previous page, so nearby as p. 42 was the inspiration for my so "original" theory after reading p. 43. Here is the hard part of this post. In my still sober judgment, I fear I may fail to be convincing of a possible analogical parallel between "more meaningful worship", and proper ethics in conjugal relations. I don't think anyone could rationally argue against the young future pope's conclusive concern for married couples. But that it applied to everybody, every person we encounter? Even to God, not only as God, but because God is a Person? I want to quote from the book now: "So, while the commandment to love is not, strictly speaking, identical with the personalistic norm but only presupposes it, as it implies also a personalistic system of values..." (the lights just flashed...saving post)...we can, taking a broader view, say that the commandment to love is the personalistic norm." ---ibid. p. 41 I know that this alone does not advance my case, and also that I may lose some that just want to stop being so distracted in prayer or have been experiencing boring, unfulfilling worship. I have probably erred on one side by being too personal (!), and on the other by failing to translate the author's philosophy in an accessible way. I hope to try to correct both issues. And I also want to suggest strenuously that the problem in worship isn't method. Thanks to the rain, I will probably be unable to work in the yard tomorrow very well, and will try to expand on the future pope's thoughts in a broad, bright daylight hour. God help me. Good night. God bless all, 3.