Yeah, I don't subscribe to the Trinity.

<:really:591181753625083905>

<:pardon:599708367245541387>

spit it out @Valkindir

@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.

Palamas argued that Gods energies were not equal to his essence did he not?

Have you read Palamas?

Have you read Aquinas?

Not personally I haven't read Palamas

I have read Aquinas of course

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.

He's just being humble, he's read Palamas I can confirm @Valkindir

Okay

@Sentient23 I appreciate you letting me know.

He not only distinguished them, but called one superior and one inferior

No problem

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?