Complex does not men messy

That is what chinese do to get research papers accepted in journals

I'm done, dude.

it's been over two hours

and we've made zero progress

Actually we've made some minor progress

actually, no, whatever progres I just thought I would have to make I already did state and make earlier in the conversation

So I'm at a loss for how to actually progress

or if progress is even possible

Well, I think I have made a lot of progress by making it evident how much of a pile of garbage all the vague energy autism is

And what happens when someone actually dissects what you say

Your spirit is caked in devil semen.

How creative. Truly God must inspire your tongue

Next time don't get so arrogant, talking about how much you will enlighten us, as if I was some child you are trying to educate

Because I wasn't going to make the last smug comment, but that wall of text, as if I was some retarded child and you were trying to enlighten me, when I have just pointed out that it doesn't seem clear what "energies" refers to. And from examples and analogies I can think of some things, but those things (power, creations, etc.) seem to be already covered. And none of those, by the way, are existence, which you try to make analogous to energies, but that comparison is messy. Going point by point when you quoted Aquinas:

"The faculty of laughing is demonstrated as a thing besides a man's essence, since it is from the man's essence that the faculty of laughing is caused."
Ok, no problem. Keep in mind that the faculty of laughing is refered to as something separate from the essence.

"The existence of laughing is caused by the essence, and we've already seemed to agree that us typing to each other is an energy"
We were talking about the faculty of laughing. What is the existence of laughing? The faculty? An act enabled by the faculty of laughing? And we have not defined well what an energy is. You said is a metaphysical cathegory. But what defines it? What makes something an energy? From this sentece, it is infered that it is the act, the typing, the event, since you talk about "us writing". But it could also be the writings itself, as yousaid before ("my writings are my energies"). In that case energies are synonim to creation, but you said that God's energies were uncreated, and even more, that they are God.

(cont.)

"It wouldn't be out of the question to draw an analogous comparison between methods of communication and content of communication, between laughter and typing"
This sentence is badly structured. It seems to imply that "laughter and typing" is an example of "method and content", which they clearly aren't. Without an example, I don't fully understand what method of communication and content means. In typing, the method seems to be the action, the excercise of a power at a certain time and place, and the content the creation. But this is not elaborated.

"Describing them both as existences in the Thomist view, and as energies in the Orthodox view, are consistent."
Now this is where it gets wild, the conclusion. In the vocabulary used by Thomas, what exists is what is actual, that is, what actually is, reality, what isn't potential. Now by saying that they are axistences according to thomas, you seem to mean that using that definition, we could say that the method of communication and the content of communication exist (I will not focus on whether or not this would be correct). And you also say that using orthodox therminology, it would be said that they are energies. The conclusion I see in the text is that:
1) Something existing (ie laughing, or the faculty of laughing) for Thomas is the same as something being an energy, which would mean that an energy is whatever is actual. And since God exists and is actual, that would imply Godis an energy. Or maybe you mean that existence as a separate thing is an energy, so that God's existence would be God's energies, and my existence are my energies? But the definition of existence does not match anything you havev said about energies beyond being concepts.
2) That the way of communicating something, and what is communicated are both examples of energies, which is confusing to me because now energies have to be defined so that the definition includes both acts and creations/products.

Now before I tried to end the discussion in good terms, saying how this just seemed to be a semantic thing, to avoid conflict and reach common grounds. But since you made it clear that you wanted war, to take a pathetic jab at scholasticism and to pretend that your mess (which is messy because of lack of clarity in meanings) represents it well, here you have it. As much war as you want.

Saving this one for the books. This will come in handy later

Interesting debate you guys got there

Part of the issue has to do with the difference between Western and Eastern minds I think though

The energy-essence debate ***can*** be made in Western scholastic terms ***if*** a precise definition is given for "energies."

This very difference of mind is locked also into language

Greek (esp. Koine) is locked into great nuance. Words have very broad meanings. This is very useful for conveying a great deal of "idea," if you will, with few words, but it sacrifices clarity due to the high level of nuance

Latin is the polar opposite. It is extremely precise as a language, and, as a result, often fails to convey the nuance of Greek in translation

So what occurs when you attempt to port an Eastern idea, which is also formed in Greek, into a Western framework, which is also formed in Latin, it often fails to port properly. Or, in some cases, it cannot port at all really without mass works of explanation. And such a mass work of explanation is not suited for Discord channels.

I can give a microcosm to demonstrate this

John 4:10

**John 4:10 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<10> Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water." ```

So at the end here, we have "living" water

Or "ὕδωρ ζῶν"

"zaō hydōr"

"zaō" here directly translates to "living" indeed. The English translation is accurate to the literal translation. But the Greek is much more nuanced

"zaō" can also mean "flowing" in this context, or "many" in some cases or "powerful" as in "being full of the power of the source" perhaps.

Because Greek is built in a way that words are kinda formed from thoughts in a sense. The "idea" of "zaō" is somettbing of life and the soul and origin (hence, flowing, IE coming from an origin, which is the soul/spirit of Jesus here, in context).

So to equate "energeia" with "existentia" isn't entirely accurate because "existentia" is a far narrower term than "energeia." Though, one could, perhaps, attempt to show how "existentia" is related to "energeia," but I imagine this would be quite a challenge.

Why are evangelical Protestant so willingly ignorant?

Please explain

@GodFearingEnglishman

Their faith seems based entirely on emotion as opposed to reason. When they argue with Catholics, their best arguments are idolatry, paedophile priests, or works-based salvation. They seem to know absolutely nothing about other denominations.