Hey. I found you guys through Telegram. I've been lurking on there for about a month. I live in Texas. I'm running a RPE based program on my squats, DL, and pushups, trying to recomp weight. On that note, I nightwalk nearly everyday, somewhere between 4 and 12 mi. My faith has always been a struggle. To spare you a story, it has been lukewarm, and it has been between the extremes: Absolute denial and pure zeal. In the last half of the year, I learned how much I don't know that I don't know, and am beginning from the ground up to return to a relationship in Christ. I attend an Orthodox Church in the area as a catechumen. Generally, I despise discord. All the discord servers I've been on have either been honeypots or larps, for the most part, and the people on it pretend far too much. So to say, I'm interested in your doctrine, but I'm honestly unsure how much you guys say about it compared to how much you be about it. That is, I'm unsure if I should join your brotherhood, or if that is what God asks of me. How true are you? I want to find all that out. And, frankly, I want you guys to be better than me by leaps and bounds, so that I know living people to aspire to. I hope that I come across more earnest than this paragraph suggests to me. In any case, live well. God is great!

@Hiertebrand Bro, you're not submitting that perspective can be wrong. If you hand all authority over to an agent and it is misused, then you are presupposing that something is dictating above and beyond the perspective of the agent.

Nah, you said, "try working with people who have severe mental illness and come back to me when you realise that perception dictates above all". I'm just saying you aren't *submitting* that perspective can be wrong when you say that. As for what you just said, I hope you all the best.

The other thing you said, that it was "all down to perception", is a misalignment with other things you put out there. Which is part of why Mongolite wasn't about it, I suppose. Didn't seem like you were in such fundamental disagreement as the convo developed to. There's muh piece

unfiltered nosiness

@Doktor Goon @Eoppa The scientific method has no scientific proof for its validity. It is incomplete under its own bearing (authority), as the Godel was also able to say. To accept it as true, another reference is needed, and another. Thus it must be ground either arborescently or hierarchically, but it must be ground, as pragmatism dictates.

It's the argument behind this one

@Doktor Goon replace "scientific" with whatever method you are arguing

@Doktor Goon According to the Freudians. Other psychological positions must deny the Freudian account. They cannot all be compatible under "psychology"

@Doktor Goon For example, Jung denied Freud's ego as too reductionistic of the self.

In Latin, "ego" just means "I" in the first person, but Jung saw that as too limited within the experience of the self to either account for the self or how the self tells stories about itself across time. Rather, Jung saw the self more than just a referent. It was alive at each point it was referenced, though not distributed across all its references.

Thus, to Jung, the self wasn't gestalt nor operative.

Freud was like, "what are you on bro".

😂

@Doktor Goon But, Eoppa makes a good point. If you can understand the subject this way, for what it is, you then have to talk about how it came there, both historically and logically; correspondantly and consistently. This is why subjectivism from subjectivism (from subjectivism....) only gets you as far as "elephants all the way down". And, reality isn't built on strict reference alone, since patterns are perceived, not just patterned. That story of self cannot tell you the origin, either in terms of an originating act or an originating subject. And, so you come to a place of mystery (as mysterium).

I dunno. Maybe I'm giving him a good argument. Maybe I'm giving you a good argument. I care about the truth and telling it, which means I'm saying this to the people with ears for the truth, nothing else.

@Doktor Goon Solving implies dissolution. The centralizing claim of Christianity is that Christ is the Logos; that is, in essence, "ratio rex", Word, the first fire, the last law, the rule of rule, or the resolution of resolution, and so on. This philosophy is what holds Christianity together technically, historically, and, by definition, logically. Thus, the rejection of Christ (through rejection of the Logos) is true for you extensively (ie if you say you disbelieve), but that is also true for most "Christians", for they primarily pay sincere lip service to the Logos. However, if you intensively reject the Logos, you adopt a "revolutionary spirit" against all truth or standing, as seen in devout communists, for example. Like you said the root is found in rejection, but the treetop is found in welcome. The Christian answers that the axis mundi of this tree is this golden branch. It is a metaphysical assertion. Nonetheless, the question of meaning for any man is: What is his rejection of Logos, the golden branch? Yet, he is answered in the questions of how far down, how simply, and how intensively he rejects Logos, not in his knowledge of climbing, branches, and abstraction (as many "Christians" have you believe).

@Doktor Goon treat it as a technical meme, a high effort/ long form shitpost

spergs sperg, for it is their nature

do you keep asking your car why it guzzles gas?

then, his dickishness is in question because he was just that special?

a special sperg with a special heart

Then, you got him beat now and forever, since you've practiced enduring retarded replies and sassed back to special spergery. Be easy with that. With great power and great responsibillty, come great humor.

@Maksim Labor theory of value takes out subjective utility and quality, among ignoring the telos of the good itself. It was also drafted by Petty, who was too busy brown-nosing Cromwell and the puppet kings he put in power.

one man's kink is another man's kindling

😤

@Deleted User erection rejection

inspection for erection insurrection

Correction for the direction of an erection's injection

@Doktor Goon the problem with that argument is more generally that it embodies a modal fallacy, with few exceptions

"Judeo-Christian" belongs to the larger class of fallacies of and through non-sectarianism, conceptually. Textually and philosophically, the Talmud and the Bible cannot reconcile. Metaphysically, they are anathema. Thus, while there is a shared tradition from OT to NT, the values of the "Jews" and the Christians are alterity.

@Dr. Emperor Thanatos the wise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHZ0p6y8t9E

Per natural law, good violence is exact and deadly. Per supernatural law, violence is just iff. it is sanctified, for exact justice proceeds from sanctity. Violence for vengeance or revolution from authority is unsanctified (Romans 12-13), for in these the violent are usurpers (of His seat of authority) that give the devil a foothold in them (Ephesians 4:27). However, retaliation (lex talonis: Exodus 21:23-25), to pay back in kind, is delegated onto authority, from which the sword is given to rulers for good reason (Romans 13:4). Authorities relegate this accordingly, that all immorality is rebuked and expelled/removed/exarated (1 Corinthians 5). The euphemism of this verse is clear, but note: The use of minimal compliant force is key to build even one's enemies to repent. Insofar as described, this isn't just a right, but a duty: To spread the Gospel in living it, exemplifying it. And, bearing that sword so as to not suffer murderers/thieves/evildoers as a Christian (that is, on part of the Faith and its statues) does not shame this authority, but glorifies God in it (1 Peter 4:15-16). Contrary to public opinion, Jesus does not revoke lex talonis in Matthew 5:38 ("eye for an eye..."), but rather escalates it to emphasize how the sword the sovereign/person/civil body uses also looms over his/its head, for this sword is delegated by God (and mediated by Christ). Jesus says as much (Matthew 5:17-18). Therefore, violence per natural/supernatural law stays inviolate (until all is accomplished).

Papal supremacy and the Apostolic Cathedra of Roma is most argued from misquotes and misunderstandings of Church fathers, but, worse, it dodges history to make its claim. History is its best foot forward, so I'll deal in that. Note, not one Ecumenical council was ever called by a Roman Pontiff. If Papal supremacy were Holy Tradition and the Pope had Primacy of teaching, then its power would have been used to resolve the many, many disputes in Early Church History. It was not (thus, QED), and, contrarily to papist teaching, the Councils were instead at odds with the Papacy: See the calling 4th Ecumenical Council, against the wishes of the Pope, or the 6th Ecumenical Council declaring the heresy of Pope Honorius; and, so on and so forth. Also, recall that Rome was organized (rather than founded) by both Peter and Paul (a prime is never even). And, each of them formed many more episcopal sees, which, by definition, must have the same jurisdictional standing and should, to this day, now as overseen by other Bishops. So much for supremacy. "No distinction shall be drawn by the merits of the two" is also refuted by this former point, thus the stature of the seat self-refutes logically. Further, the title Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis, the trojan ally to to Pontiff Maximus, was already condemned by Saint Ambrose (himself a universalist and proponent of the filioque): Self refutation of a universal bishop of Roma, on its own terms, by its own kind.

take yourself from the jesuit justification

it is a cuttting up

Jesuits are the originators of popular utilitarianism

even the montanists didn't agree

@Eoppa there are things to learn from Loyola and their fervent mission, but they go back on too much of the faith, their premises disagree internally, and they kenosize, hollow out, Western Christianity in so doing

@Maksim have you ever read The Great Divorce?

@Asdrubal The history of Christianity is a long history of disagreement

@Asdrubal yeah

@Maksim Francis Bacon did

metaphorical musery used to be an important idea to truth

@Maksim I cook that boy up for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, the hog he was....

that's basically a reitteration of Pelagianism

@Eoppa Palamas literally argues the opposite of what you claim in the quote you cited. Composition implies combination, to which you are true to say implies a secondary decomposition (into such particulars of which to be combined), and therefore implicates many forms of God divided, or what you may call polytheism. Notice, however, that St. Palamas uses the term "consubstantial", that is, authority with the substance, essence, of the Trinity. Therefore, he argues against a composite identity by formalizing this distinction. There are other, better passages where he makes the essence-energy distinction more "real", but I remind you that in these he holds the essence-energy distinction as epistemological, not ontological, and as such does not impose a hierarchical procession of identities of these (so as to not reduce God into a composite/pluralvocity of being). St Palamas, therefore, doesn't explicitly make a real/actual distinction in His essence and energies, but rather makes a formal distinction, which is precisely what Duns Scotus did, who yet purported God's univocity. I will also remind you that Aquinas made a virtual distinction of God's essence and energies to expound what he said. But, it would be unwise to rebuke either the subtle doctor or St Aquinas: Why Palamas?

Also, be aware that, logically, a real distinction of essence-energy is not a real distinction of hypostasis or the hypostatic union.

@Eoppa First, my exact point is that Aquinas espoused absolute divine simplicity, and at the same time virtuated attributes of God, while maintaining that they are his essence. In other words, they are "consubstantial" to God himself. Why can't Palamas? Second, let me restate you to better evaluate what you said: "To argue God's essence and energy are not completely equal is composing God". (A) Did I say anything to the contrary? Also, understand that the claim on it's own terms introduces inequality by not supposing it too. There can be no explanation of energy nor essence without describing how either operates, but that can't be done if you don't give it a logical syntax and systemize it. Of course, that doesn't mean the divine syntax is this explantion. (B) Composition: to position with, typically by ennumerating inbuilt characters/elements. We compose God epistemology, that is, to learn of Him. Any description of Him, positive or negative, is just that. Our practice of Theology is well worn in this, East or West. Where, ontologically, He is not such a sum of descriptions, which is what I already said. Third, my last point was in reference to the video you posted. It consistently confused the argument against the essence energy distinction with hypostasis as explained by the Eastern Orthodox, when those are not the same arguments, for they are not the same descriptions of God.

Have you read Palamas?

Have you read Aquinas?

Palamas time and again describes energies as different than essence. Distinction is loaded word, since it tends to associate with identity, but you could say that he referenced them distinctly. However, notice that he subscribes to them the oneness of the substance in God.

Okay

@Sentient23 I appreciate you letting me know.

What do these words mean?

Are you sure?

If I subordinate something in one case, does that mean I subordinate them in all cases?

"This sentence is false"

Is it?

Is it not?

You can only tell through language by subordination

God is Love

is he just that?

@Eoppa rn I'm just trying to talk with you, not Jay Dyer, not Bishop Fulton Sheen. If you'd be willing to teach me and me you, we can both benefit. Notice that you just ennumerated attributes of God. These attributes form a count. That is, they are elements/composites in our language. However, our language is incomplete for it is not the fullness of the Logos

Right, but in ennumerating them, we have made them distinct and differentiated them

fundamentally they are the same, of the same origin, that is, Him

functionally, we tell of them in a way which composes them

Palamas is basically saying

we learn of God through this function, in more ways than just language

Fundamentally, He Is

"I AM the I AM"

the ontological statement of the fundamental being of beings

kek

a more down to earth way of saying it is that in the two words "He Is", the "who", He, God, was, is, and will be

and, the necessity of what requires all those things to have been true forever, is the first and final cause, the beginning and the end, God @Deleted User

@Eoppa well, do I come across as sensible so far?

reasonable?

<:smug:591181720565579807>

@Deleted User mystery is important

stay humble and seeking

@Eoppa The major different between the Thomist and Palamite is in their understanding of the Trinity. The filioque has caused a major disagreement between East and West . You are missing something though, Palamas saw Hypostatic union as one, the essence and energies of God were not distributed amongst the Trinity, according to Palamas, though many Hesychasts did say that. Do be mindful that East and West have had their share of heretics, so that isn't at the heart of this issue.

In both cases, God is not seen as "the God of the dead, but the living". However, with the Spirit proceeding from Father and Son, the matter of understanding God from his attributes is from the movement of the Spirit, predominantly. Not to deny that the West thinks God works in and through History, but that how he works is changed in popular thought. By comparison, the East has a sense of this movement in terms of phases, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, working together as if they were reaping the same harvest. It leads to this idea further down where they each ordinate and subordinate one another as needed.

That is, the Divine Communion is one of movements in the West and phases in the East.

No, the EO understand the Spirit as Proceeding from the Father, as the Son proceeds from the Father, as if it were the same ratio, for lack of a better word. That is, they are hypostatically equal. And, the EO think that the RC demoted the importance of the Trinity and "made it composite" in an ontological sense by saying so, which is why there was so much more schismaticism about this in History than all the infighting about other points. Wonder why? Notice, that in saying that the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son, the Spirit sort of took a much more mysterious role in RC than it did in EO. Such that, much of the remnants of Roman Catholics (Lutherans/Anglicans) rarely address the work of the Spirit as the do the Condescension of the Son or the Creation of the Father. An interesting aside was that many Gnostics thought the Spirit proceeded from Father and Son too.

Alright, I'll stop