Great Apostasy revisited

[3DOP]

On 8/11/2026 at 11:00 AM, BlipBlap said:

We could potentially take it even further and explore the idea that "creatio ex nihilo" implies that God himself is nothing.  God creating all things would mean that all things are the product of the mind of God.  If God (and therefore his mind) is eternal and he created all things, that would mean that his mind would be the pre-existing material by which all things were given form.

 

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.

  

Edited Sunday at 01:33 PM by 3DOP

[Calm]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

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.

  

To clarify:  “ex nihilo” simply refers to the physical world of matter and energy, nothing physical?

[3DOP]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

To clarify:  “ex nihilo” simply refers to the physical world of matter and energy, nothing physical?

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 

 

Edited Sunday at 10:39 PM by 3DOP

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Does that make any sense?

In the sense of reason yes, in the sense of being able to visualize or comprehend it…nope.  
The closest I get to it is thinking how I create by first visualizing in my head what I want and then I take what is required to create it.
 

But if I understand correctly, you are saying God simply thinking (or what he does in this process) of something is enough for it to take form.  Nothing else shifts in any way, material or immaterial.  The creation just is.  

Edited Sunday at 11:50 PM by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

It doesn't seem like a loving Father should be too upset with us for overestimating His powers...if we have done so. 

I very much agree with this.  
 

There might be some frustration and sorrow with what some have inferred from this belief, including what follows from God being the only one who existed before he created.  For example, If it leads some to deny we are his literal children and we actually are.

(which belief comes first and which follows?) God is the only one who has always existed or God created everything else out of nothing).

So…..the only thing God could exist within would be God.  Hmmm…

Edited yesterday at 12:17 AM by Calm

[manol]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

if I understand correctly, you are saying God simply thinking (or what he does in this process) of something is enough for it to take form. 

I'm not committed to any particular doctrine of how creation happened, or is happening (maybe it's not over yet?), but as a thought exercise:

Suppose God exists in a realm where thoughts are, or can be, energy.  From there, it's not a huge leap to envision a sufficiently advanced "celestial technology" (for lack of a better term) converting this energy into matter; in fact, down here in the physical we even have an equation describing how much physical-world energy it takes to create matter:  E/C^2 = M

Now down here in the physical world we have conservation of matter and energy, such that the total sum of the two remains constant in the physical universe, but maybe that is not the case for the non-physical universe.  For instance suppose you become filled with the pure love of Christ.  Is there now less of the pure love of Christ somewhere else in the universe(s)?  I don't think so; I think you have actually increased the net amount of the pure love of Christ in the universe(s). 

I'm not saying the above two paragraphs are descriptive of how creation happened; what I'm really saying is, I think it's a good idea to keep an open mind.  If one's paradigm is correct, it will survive open-minded encounters with other paradigms.  And if one's paradigm is incorrect, it will be corrected by open-minded encounters with other paradigms  (assuming one of those is more correct).  Imo this is a topic where there is vastly more we don't know than what little we do "know". 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:55 AM by manol

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

It doesn't seem like a loving Father should be too upset with us for overestimating His powers...if we have done so. 

I agree, to a point.  Where creation ex-nihilo creates problems (out of nothing?) in my opinion, is that it introduces a total separation between God and man, one that I think contradicts Paul's teachings in Acts 17:28-29.  In doing so it distorts God's relationship to mankind and introduces a boat load of theological problems, such as exacerbating the problems of evil.  It also changes the ideas about monotheism (as I just posted in a separate thread).

Edited yesterday at 12:57 AM by InCognitus

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I very much agree with this.  
 

There might be some frustration and sorrow with what some have inferred from this belief, including what follows from God being the only one who existed before he created.  For example, If it leads some to deny we are his literal children and we actually are.

(which belief comes first and which follows?) God is the only one who has always existed or God created everything else out of nothing).

So…..the only thing God could exist within would be God.  Hmmm…

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.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

don't want to reduce anything to total understanding. We have mystery. So do you.

Yes, eventually it all gets down to “it just is” whether it’s God alone or all eternally existent beings and a material something they exist within.

 

[3DOP]

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I agree, to a point.  Where creation ex-nihilo creates problems (out of nothing?) in my opinion, is that it introduces a total separation between God and man, one that I think contradicts Paul's teachings in Acts 17:28-29.  In doing so it distorts God's relationship to mankind and introduces a boat load of theological problems, such as exacerbating the problems of evil.  It also changes the ideas about monotheism (as I just posted in a separate thread).

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

[InCognitus]

6 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

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

I don't think there is any theological view that is free from problems to be solved.  I look forward to the day when we can come face to face with God and get all of our questions answered.  "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)

[InCognitus]

18 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Every time I think of this verse it causes me to remember a time when my wife and I were staying at my in-laws on their farm property while helping my father-in-law recover from an injury.  They had a rooster named "Darkly", and he used to come up to the glass sliding door that opened out to the back patio to let us know that the chickens needed to be fed.  And I would say, "For now we see through a glass, Darkly".  

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/3/2026 at 11:29 AM, teddyaware said:

Do you believe in the resurrection that men and women’s resurrected bodies are going to be anatomically correct, with their internal and external male and female reproductive organs fully intact

In the other thread, I pointed out how weird it is that you always focus on getting joy out of seeing other people finding out they are wrong.

Over the years, you have also consistently discussed resurrected genitalia. That is also very weird, especially because you think it is some sort of gotcha. First, you act like Christians over the past 2000 years, including some of the most intelligent and educated minds of western civilization, never considered these things. Second, I’ll say it clearly: resurrected humans have penises and vaginas.

Can we move on? Or do you still want to discuss genitals?

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/10/2026 at 10:56 PM, BlipBlap said:

The argument isn't that "Greek thought is wrong", but the Nicaean conception of God requires one to go to schools of thought that are (more or less) outside the source material.  Neither the Old or New Testament explicitly describe God in the manner in which he is described in the Nicene Creed, with many verses being valid arguments against this conception.  Combine this with the notion that "the church" (i.e. Christendom) requires a monotheistic theology, and you end up with a problem.  How do we maintain monotheism while also dealing with three distinctions, The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit?

The Hebrews certainly didn't conceive God in the same way, there is very little Jesus himself said (based on the Gospels) that supports the idea, and the idea conflicts with other points of theology found in those churches as well as points presented within the Nicene Creed itself.

 

Do you believe in continuing revelation? or is the primitive Christian Church held to stricter standards than the LDS church when it comes to source material?

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/11/2026 at 10:59 AM, BlipBlap said:

I never said that it did, but considering that the LDS church doesn't believe in a closed canon, that question doesn't really work against us.

Neither does the Catholic Church, as dogma can be, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, refined, understood better, and declared.

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/16/2026 at 6:28 PM, manol said:

I'm not committed to any particular doctrine of how creation happened, or is happening (maybe it's not over yet?)

I absolutely believe it is continual. God is the source of being and creates our being, just as the Son is begotten from the Father continually. He is not the clock maker of the deists.