Message from @Valkindir
Discord ID: 674106154254860309
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
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?