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?

@Valkindir Maybe it's the nature of the statement or just myself but for something to just "he is" bothers me as it's a constant and can't be further understood with questions. But this problems could also be assigned to many other things in existence in a universal regress of small pieces and expanding information via questions. But for now it's hard to find answers to those dilemmas, maybe one day.

@Deleted User mystery is important

stay humble and seeking

Ehh, well even if you knew everything like God did if you couldn't act in everyway so you still are at his mercy. But I get your point.

What do we think about 1 Thessalonians chapter 2

And Paul's way of converting and preaching

Extreme Love

@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.

@Maksim I don't personally have an opinion but I did hear once that Paul somehow changed the gospel because he taught in some different way that was "incorrect". Personally I've never understood it as method of Love and sometimes cruel truths was similar to Christ's. Don't know if that's what you were looking for but it's all I got. I'm mostly here to learn.