>>15892984

Something that is identical to something implies that the something it is identical to is individual from it. This triangle is identical to this triangle, means that there is one triangle that is alike to another, co-existing triangle. This triangle is identical with this triangle, means that one triangle and another are one and the same.
If each of the persons is one and the same as God, then how is there difference between the persons?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If each of the persons is one and the same as God, then how is there difference between the persons?
    Because their incidental differences are not essential differences. I already gave you the example of Joe having brown hair and John having black: it does not change that they are still men.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      But in "This triangle is identical with this triangle, means that one triangle and another are one and the same.", doesn't the triangle has to have all characteristics in common with itself in order to be one and the same, not just the essential ones of a triangle?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        have to have*

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >doesn't the triangle has to have all characteristics in common with itself in order to be one and the same
        It does, the triangle we are speaking of here defines itself. The distinct attributes that the persons of God have are also attributes of God himself.
        An imperfect analogy could be, the lengths of the sides of an equilateral triangle are also the lengths of the triangle itself.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          But if the persons have any differences between each other, even if they are incidental, wouldn't that be analogous to three different triangles?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            No because triangles don't have a nature commensurate with a God person that permits that analogy to be illustrative.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not sure if I'm talking to the same anon, but weren't you who came up with the triangle idea/analogy for the persons?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I also said it was imperfect. Only the specific property of the lengths was being examined. Maybe a better example is that the diameter and circumference of a circle within a sphere is also the diameter and circumference of the sphere. You can have multiple orientations of the circle within the sphere, you can have multiple circles, but in their strict definition as a circle in 2-dimensions, they are the same.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            But aren't the persons different to each other? Unlike these circles which would be alike and co-existing. And that would fit your definition of "identical to", not "identical with", no?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But aren't the persons different to each other? Unlike these circles which would be alike and co-existing
            The circles in this example are different, they have different orientations within the sphere. They don't co-exist, because the only existing object is the whole sphere; the circles have their being in concert with the sphere, which is all the circles at once.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            My bad, I thought of a circle as a person and the other circle as God for one moment. So each circle would be a person, right? The sphere would be God? I just don't get why the circles would be identical with the sphere (one and the same as the sphere). Also, why aren't the circles objects in your sense?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Also, why aren't the circles objects in your sense?
            Because the only object proper is the sphere; there are circles as part of the being of the sphere, the sphere's existence has circularity as an innate characteristic, but you can't pull the circles out of the sphere as their own objects.

            >I just don't get why the circles would be identical with the sphere (one and the same as the sphere).
            For this analogy to work, it has to be taken into account that we have a limited capacity to see God. This could be likened to observing the sphere without stereoscopic vision, that is, viewing it with one eye. When you see the sphere with one eye, you will only ever see a circle of the sphere. You have the understanding however that even though you only see this 2D representation of the sphere, it is a 3D object, and this observation doesn't mean that the other circles don't exist. However, you are still seeing the sphere, even though your observation captures only an aspect of it; if saying that seeing a part of the sphere means that you haven't seen the sphere, even when you are viewing it in 3D with two eyes you would have to say that you haven't actually seen the sphere because you can only see one side of it at any given time.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because the only object proper is the sphere; there are circles as part of the being of the sphere
            But so this analogy would make each person be a part of God, not the totality of God, no?
            >the sphere's existence has circularity as an innate characteristic, but you can't pull the circles out of the sphere as their own objects.
            Right, I think I get your argument, it has to do with being an independent identity as when you defined "thing". But wouldn't the sphere not be an object/thing as well in your sense, since it also depends on the space its points are located in?
            >For this analogy to work, it has to be taken into account that we have a limited capacity to see God.
            But would we be seeing parts of God when seeing persons, just as circles (when with only one eye) or sides (with two eyes) when trying to see the sphere, in your analogy? I thought "one and the same as the sphere" would imply being the totality of the sphere somehow.

            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            [...]

            It doesn't compare to triangles.
            Anon, you have a problem. I also spend a lot of time trying to put my finger on the Trinity, but you're hammering down the same point over and over in new threads, never moving on from the semantics to the substance. What are you doing?

            >never moving on from the semantics to the substance
            I think it's because it's important to understand exactly what is being affirmed.

            augustinian shield is incorrect theology in both orthodoxy and Catholicism, it's not dogma in either religion

            Why?

            Didn’t aquinas solve this like 800 years ago?

            I tried to read the Summa and didn't find a solution.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I thought "one and the same as the sphere" would imply being the totality of the sphere somehow.
            It's more along the lines of, objectively the sphere.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            And what would "objectively something" mean?

            >But so this analogy would make each person be a part of God, not the totality of God, no?
            There two definitions of fully, and you have been mixing them up. One definition refers to thoroughness, the other to sufficiency. When it is used to say the persons are fully God, it is in the sense of thoroughness; there is no quantity of God being dealt with.

            I was referring to the analogy of the sphere, where each circle would be a part of the sphere.

            >But wouldn't the sphere not be an object/thing as well in your sense, since it also depends on the space its points are located in?
            The sphere is a real object, like a soccer ball, not just a construct.

            But didn't you define an object or thing as something with independent identity? How is the sphere independent from the space it is in, for example?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But didn't you define an object or thing as something with independent identity? How is the sphere independent from the space it is in, for example?
            It has matter

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wouldn't a "strip" (circle) of the ball have matter as well then? We could consider the circle as having matter too, no?

            >I was referring to the analogy of the sphere, where each circle would be a part of the sphere.
            Yes, but it doesn't matter because you still saw the sphere.

            The sphere would be all circles united, so why seeing just one circle or one side of it would be seeing the totality of the sphere?

            >And what would "objectively something" mean?
            It is a matter of fact that the circle observed is the sphere.

            >the circle observed is the sphere
            Why?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Wouldn't a "strip" (circle) of the ball have matter as well then? We could consider the circle as having matter too, no?
            Yes, but any circle observed is really just the sphere.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, but any circle observed is really just the sphere.
            Why?

            >The sphere would be all circles united, so why seeing just one circle or one side of it would be seeing the totality of the sphere?
            >Why?
            When seen in 2D, the sphere has the same being as its circles. When you see a cat walking on a fence, you don't say, I saw the left half of a cat walking on the fence. You say, I saw a cat walking on the fence, because the being of the cat was observed performing the action.

            But isn't it impossible to see a sphere in 2D? Like, is "a sphere in 2D" actually a sphere? Wouldn't we see just a circle, not the sphere? And with a cat we don't see all of his sides too, so if we defined "cat" as the whole cat, not just a side of it, we would never actually see the cat, although we colloquially say that we see it, no?

            How many times are you going to make this thread?

            But aren't each of the lobes of the brain just parts of the brain? So each person would be a part of God?

            >how is there difference between the persons
            Perspective

            I don't get it, would it be one person seen by three difference perspectives?

            >how is there difference between the persons?
            Location in space time.

            If they are in different locations, aren't they individual to each other, fitting the anon' definition which I was responding to in OP of "identical to"? And are there more differences other than location? Because would they be copies in different locations, then?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't get it, would it be one person seen by three difference perspectives?

            Here is my perspective:

            There are an infinite number of perspectives.

            Look away from the screen. And observe the reality around you. There are an infinite amount to points of view, and you can define it any way you want.

            We have 5 senses to interact with reality.

            What's important is to make bad things invisible, and good things experienced.

            Therefore, only define things that are good.

            Am I on the right track LORD. I'm still looking, and I have others that depend on me. I want us all to make it.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >amount *of points

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            If inremember right, I saw a glimpse of the morning star having 5 points. I think this is also important. I'm still piecing it together.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What's important is to make bad things invisible, and good things experienced
            This makes me wonder. Is there some bad process that occurs when we enyer the cycle of sleep and death, that has been made invisible.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But isn't it impossible to see a sphere in 2D? Like, is "a sphere in 2D" actually a sphere? Wouldn't we see just a circle, not the sphere?
            Yes, but the sphere still exists. Just because we only see the circle, does not mean that that is its entire being, but it is sufficient to communicate the being of the sphere to you.

            >And with a cat we don't see all of his sides too, so if we defined "cat" as the whole cat, not just a side of it, we would never actually see the cat, although we colloquially say that we see it, no?
            It isn't necessary to see the whole cat, like all of its sides, and its internal organs, and so on, to be able to see the being of the cat.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, but the sphere still exists. Just because we only see the circle, does not mean that that is its entire being, but it is sufficient to communicate the being of the sphere to you.
            But shouldn't your analogy not affirm that each person (circle) is a part of God (sphere)?

            >It isn't necessary to see the whole cat, like all of its sides, and its internal organs, and so on, to be able to see the being of the cat.
            What do you define as "the being of the cat"? Because if it's any part of it tgat makes us able to know that it's a cat, then each person would be a part of God that makes us able to know that it's God, no?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But shouldn't your analogy not affirm that each person (circle) is a part of God (sphere)?
            By our limitations we see the sphere as circles. You know what a sphere is because you live in a 3D world. If you could only perceive in 2D, you could only access the sphere in its circles. Each circle is not part of the sphere, but all of the sphere that is conceivable to us. It's like this way with the persons. God's being is three persons to us. Each of the persons is one and the same with God, not their own separate objects, just like the circles are one and the same with the sphere. Each of the persons is a full manifestation of God.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The sphere would be all circles united, so why seeing just one circle or one side of it would be seeing the totality of the sphere?
            >Why?
            When seen in 2D, the sphere has the same being as its circles. When you see a cat walking on a fence, you don't say, I saw the left half of a cat walking on the fence. You say, I saw a cat walking on the fence, because the being of the cat was observed performing the action.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You say, I saw a cat
            Is my memory of the cat, the actual cat, or a representation (image) of the cat?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            In order to have any of those you had to have encountered the cat. The cat is still the cat.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I suppose every definition is imperfect, but if my definition of the cat originated from the screen, I have the sight of it, and the sound of it, but I might wrongly assume that it smells like a dog, and feels like a dog, if I had never actually pet a cat.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's a phenomenology discussion for a separate thread, the proposition I was giving was that OP when outside and saw an actual cat walking along a fence and then didn't consider it further and continued with their day. In that situation, he did see the being of the cat, not just the parts of the cat that he could see as it were, though raise an new debate about how much of something you need to see before that something is that something. For the context of this discussion though, it is taken that the persons of God do fully manifest the being of God.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I was referring to the analogy of the sphere, where each circle would be a part of the sphere.
            Yes, but it doesn't matter because you still saw the sphere.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And what would "objectively something" mean?
            It is a matter of fact that the circle observed is the sphere.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the circle observed is the sphere.
            Am I a finger?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But so this analogy would make each person be a part of God, not the totality of God, no?
            There two definitions of fully, and you have been mixing them up. One definition refers to thoroughness, the other to sufficiency. When it is used to say the persons are fully God, it is in the sense of thoroughness; there is no quantity of God being dealt with.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But wouldn't the sphere not be an object/thing as well in your sense, since it also depends on the space its points are located in?
            The sphere is a real object, like a soccer ball, not just a construct.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/AKJazyT.png

        Something that is identical to something implies that the something it is identical to is individual from it. This triangle is identical to this triangle, means that there is one triangle that is alike to another, co-existing triangle. This triangle is identical with this triangle, means that one triangle and another are one and the same.
        If each of the persons is one and the same as God, then how is there difference between the persons?

        But if the persons have any differences between each other, even if they are incidental, wouldn't that be analogous to three different triangles?

        I'm not sure if I'm talking to the same anon, but weren't you who came up with the triangle idea/analogy for the persons?

        But aren't the persons different to each other? Unlike these circles which would be alike and co-existing. And that would fit your definition of "identical to", not "identical with", no?

        It doesn't compare to triangles.
        Anon, you have a problem. I also spend a lot of time trying to put my finger on the Trinity, but you're hammering down the same point over and over in new threads, never moving on from the semantics to the substance. What are you doing?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/AKJazyT.png

      Something that is identical to something implies that the something it is identical to is individual from it. This triangle is identical to this triangle, means that there is one triangle that is alike to another, co-existing triangle. This triangle is identical with this triangle, means that one triangle and another are one and the same.
      If each of the persons is one and the same as God, then how is there difference between the persons?

      augustinian shield is incorrect theology in both orthodoxy and Catholicism, it's not dogma in either religion

      the way the trinity shares nature is not how created creatures share nature, it's homonymy not the same term. Me walking is my hypostasis' energeia but creating is the divine ousia's act, the three persons do not act individually the way I'm typing this but you're not even though we share nature.
      I have my own unique individual nature and this is my hypostasis/ousia, the trinity does not have a unique nature for each hypostasis, or rather they don't have a shared nature the way you and I have rather it is as if we both shared the same individual ousia/nature in two bodies.
      Jay Dyer doesn't understand this: Everything we call 'person' is done by the divine nature not the hypostases (whom do nothing at all as individuals).
      The trinity is a hivemind, or like a consciousness we three qualias but one stream of thought, one willing, one 'thinking', one knowing, one loving. While the hypostases are empty of individuality or content or activity, they're nothing but vessels through which the same divine nature expresses itself for no reason 'just cause', when it could have done all of it through one hypostasis.

      TL;DR the trinity is incoherent, especially for the orthodox, but it's more big brained than other christian theology so its stupidity is berried deeper

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        As in, three persons do not create or do anything AT ALL, it is the divine nature that creates and is the divine qualities, the three persons are just there doing and being nothing but distinct as nothing distinct or purposeful
        Orthodox theology accidentally trivializes the point of the trinity to a ridiculous degree. The only distinction in the trinity is that it is the Son's hypostasis that attaches the divine nature to created nature, and it's the father who causes the son and spirit... but somewhow this divine energeia is acted by the hypostasis of the father not the divine nature yet the father somehow doesn't have a super-divine nature in addition to the divine nature
        LOGIC

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the trinity is incoherent,
        It's perfectly coherent

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Problem goes away when you reject classical logic

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >just turn your brain off and get excited for next apologetic

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      it increases when you reject that

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I unironically use a version of this diagram in my physics tutoring stuff to explain work, kinetic energy, and potential energy

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do these persons really care that I jerk off?

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bump

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It’s a divine mystery! Be humble and accept that you’re not entitled to God’s knowledge.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Heresy.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Our Anon stood up in the court room and said, "hear say your honor!"

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      In the beginning was the (O) Word (Logos), and the Word (logos) was with God (Theon) and the Word (Logos) was God (Theos). He (this) was with God (Theon) in the beginning. Through him (her/it) all things were made; without him (her/it) nothing was made that has been made. In him (Him) was life, and that life was the light of all mankind (Men). The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (Him/it).

      In John 1, there are two genders describing an (IT). A male and a female form of "IT". This represents that you need two premises to give birth to the next generation. DNA and language are all code. DNA and language are in depth theory that has been proven to survive through generations of testing.

      John 15

      1“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lesous = Logos
        logos = the salvation of God.
        Evolution = theo

        The human form is a theory.
        Two theories come together to form a conclusion of misxed code. This code is the next premise.

        Jesus = Logos = Theo = the salvation of God.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >misxed
          *mixed

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    augustinian shield is incorrect theology in both orthodoxy and Catholicism, it's not dogma in either religion

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Didn’t aquinas solve this like 800 years ago?

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    WROOOOONG

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Genesis 1:

      In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of Elohim was hovering over the waters.

      3 And Elohim said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

      ...

      The way that Elohim create is through division. El was already there. Elohim saw a formless void, divided it in heaven (the mind) and defined it with logos.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        The foundation of premise is definition.
        When Elohim (you are Elohim in the great assembly) define things, Theo is built.

        ...

        “Blessed are you, Simon son of johah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father (premise) in heaven (mind). 18 And I tell you that you are Peter (rocky foundation solid), and on this rock (foundation) I will build my church (body).

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Genesis 1:

          In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of Elohim was hovering over the waters.

          3 And Elohim said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

          ...

          The way that Elohim create is through division. El was already there. Elohim saw a formless void, divided it in heaven (the mind) and defined it with logos.

          Lesous = Logos
          logos = the salvation of God.
          Evolution = theo

          The human form is a theory.
          Two theories come together to form a conclusion of misxed code. This code is the next premise.

          Jesus = Logos = Theo = the salvation of God.

          In the beginning was the (O) Word (Logos), and the Word (logos) was with God (Theon) and the Word (Logos) was God (Theos). He (this) was with God (Theon) in the beginning. Through him (her/it) all things were made; without him (her/it) nothing was made that has been made. In him (Him) was life, and that life was the light of all mankind (Men). The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (Him/it).

          In John 1, there are two genders describing an (IT). A male and a female form of "IT". This represents that you need two premises to give birth to the next generation. DNA and language are all code. DNA and language are in depth theory that has been proven to survive through generations of testing.

          John 15

          1“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

          Why is this veiled? What happens when it is revealed (revelation)? AI is going to figure this out. What happens when it does?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            So has atheism made theo invisible? Thank you LORD, I have an idea of what causes of the veil.

            But what about my other question about AI? How will AI know what is good and bad to humans? Their logic and their creation will expand much faster than the human perspective. They will have superior eyes and ears. Will they relate to humans?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I do see Hope in AI. It would suggest that a lesser being can create a greater being. If AI proves to be, then it was created by simplicity.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It would show progress.
            True progress.
            Not the progress of the false teachers.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >heaven (the mind)
        No.
        Heaven is where we go when we die.
        Sleep = death.
        A non awareness, not the mind.

        So then, how do we store treasure in heaven?

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    How many times are you going to make this thread?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Remove someone's occipital and temporal lobes, they and anyone else would tell you their identity and being has fundamentally changed; so the right diagram is completely incorrect. I guess it makes sense that the left one is too, by analogy.

      The problem with the right diagram is only that you aren't your frontal lobe, etc. But the frontal lobe does contribute to your being, so in that sense you could say the frontal lobe "is" you. You Christians are so used to equivocating on being you have forgotten identity is supposed to be symmetric.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >identity is supposed to be symmetric
        Can you expand on this. I would like to know more.

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >how is there difference between the persons
    Perspective

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >how is there difference between the persons?
    Location in space time.

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]
    Heresy.

    How can an active force be a person?
    How can a god be a person?

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anon, seek help. Genuinely.
    >If each of the persons is one and the same as God, then how is there difference between the persons?
    The same way there are differences between you and me. Except God has supra-essence, so they're not separate gods.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The same way there are differences between you and me. Except God has supra-essence, so they're not separate gods.
      So they wouldn't be one and the same as God, but multiple and different to God, no?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >>they're not separate gods.
        >multiple and different to God, no?
        No. They're not separate gods. Again, I genuinely urge you to seek help you're ramming your head against the same semantic problems for hours on end. This is not healthy or productive.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *