What do these words mean?

Are you sure?

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

If they aren't equal in all cases, that is heresy no?

"This sentence is false"

Is it?

Is it not?

You can only tell through language by subordination

What do you mean? If you mean submit to dogma, then I submit to divine simplicity

God is Love

is he just that?

Orthodox theologians typically argue against divine simplicity

Love = Being = Goodness = etc

Not only is God love, he is all of these because he is simple.

If you deny his existence is synonymous with his essence, like Jay Dyer or such do, you can't say the same

@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

Well according to Aquinas, each of these attributes are different reflections of the logos, they aren't really different. It's not a composition because they are all synonymous. Being itself is non composite, that is why if we can call God one thing it is that he is. I would love to know more about Palamism, that's why I debate.

I've been reading into EO philosophy more and more because it is something I'm lacking on

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

> Fundamentally, He Is

What do you mean by just He is?

"I AM the I AM"

the ontological statement of the fundamental being of beings

Oh, I understand. I'll go back to lurking now.

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

If EO don't reject ADS why do they try so hard to refute it?

They argue pretty hard that he is composed

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>

Yes, this is just the Thomistic view of the ADS so far

I don't see how the EED contradicts it if it's just synonymous with it

Was Palamas not speaking about the trinity?

In that the essence is the holy spirit, the being and creator/energies is the Father, and the son interacts further from there?

Or am I missing something?