Why aren't you Eastern Orthodox?

Why aren't you Eastern Orthodox?

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t want to be in communion with female clergy and people that sacrifice animals to saints.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >female clergy
      ???
      >animal sacrifice to saints
      animal sacrifice is sanctioned but not practiced, let alone dedicated to the saints

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kourbania

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >He doesn’t know.

        > Thus, the ordination of Deaconess Angelic for ministering to the unique needs of the Orthodox Churches in Africa marks a significant event in the modern world. When asked about the role of Deaconess Angelic and future deaconesses in Africa, Metropolitan Serafim said she will have liturgical and pastoral roles. He said, "She is going to do what the deacon is doing in the Liturgy and in all the sacraments in our Orthodox services." Her specific ministerial duties will address the particular needs of the parishes in Zimbabwe, as well.
        >In 2017, first steps were taken to renew the order of deaconesses in Africa when His Beatitude Theodoros II, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa consecrated five women in Democratic Republic of Congo. There is a distinction in the orders of clergy in the Orthodox Church between "minor orders" which are consecrated positions and "major orders" which are ordained positions, directly connected with the sacramental life of the church. Deaconess Angelic was ordained, which marks a return to the apostolic tradition of the institution of the diaconate.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >sanctioned but not practiced
        What?

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The claim that 'orthodox' belief remained unchanged since the times of the apostles is indefensible. Something that changes cannot be true

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Correct. The Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its ways plenty of times. They are not some archaeological survival of early Christianity immediately post-Constantine.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would I be?

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Lobsterman
    >shilling Greek Orthodox Christianity
    This is the point at which Orthocucks should admit that their little Eastern European division of Christianity is no longer for the spiritual and the enlightened, and that it has become gay and mainstream. A liberal Nietzscheian like JBP should be seen as the one thing that true Christians should always try to avoid being. He in particular is guilty for spreading more erroneous claims about the history of Western thought and conceptions of tne state and economics than anyone short of Karl Marx.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Obviously, look at the idolatrous jacket he's wearing. It's over for Orthobros. Papalchads be winning. Brb, gotta bless a gay couple real quick.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Never happened

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Talking to eachother about righteous goals is mainstream.
      I wish

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What in the frick are you talking about?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >peterson
      >'nietzschean' in any way

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >master morality christian philosopher whose entire world view revolves around religion for meaning and pull yourself up by your bootstraps stoicism of boomers
        don't do as he says, do as he does, just become a televangelist of the internet era and sell books

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is not a single Christian denomination militantly opposing Islam, despite its necessity.

    Christians are being stabbed across Europe and the Church calls for what? Frick all. If anything, it would denounce any act of preemptive self defense.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If he converts he'll follow his wife and be Catholic.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why aren't you Eastern Orthodox?
    1 - Which Eastern Orthodoxy?
    Old Believer Orthodox (many Old Believers are not in communion with mainstream Russian Palamites in addition to groups such as the Bespopovtsy)?
    Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism?
    Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism?
    Or Old Calenderist Eastern Orthodox (such as the Matthewites & Cyprianites)?
    Or “True” Orthodox?
    2 - Palamites don’t really have any coherent theology. They can’t agree on 90% of stuff and can’t even figure about basic things such as baptism or soteriology.
    3 - Continuing from #2 the Palamite churches demand people affirm EED but they can’t even agree on what EED means because Palamas didn’t have a systematic theology, he just wrote shit as ad hoc responses.
    4 - The “Le One True Church” position is kinda meme tier and Palamites refuse to follow it to its logical conclusion
    5 - the “uncreated light” directly contradicts scripture which says light is created, Genesis 1: 3-4
    6 - only God is uncreated, if the uncreated light is uncreated that means God has a form (light) which places palamite theology on par with Mormons who also hold God has a form.
    7 - Palamism places veneration (to bow down and kiss WITH AFFECTION) of created matter and man made objects as a REQUIREMENT for salvation
    8 - Palamism says that anyone who consider the transfiguration on mount Tabor to be anything other than uncreated light, are damned to outer darkness. However Saints Leo the Great and Maximus the Confessor both held views differing to Palamas. Thus condemn their own saints.
    9 - the toll houses is just neo-gnosticism and a denial of the gospel.
    10 - The Palamite Churches made Stefan Uros II Milutin a Saint despite him being “married” 4 or 5 times and his last wife being 5yrs old.
    11 - Unable to maintain concilliar infallibility

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't agree with the essence-energy distinction but the notion of God's essence being perceived as light is foundational to Christianity. Catholics believe the concept too, it's called the Beatific Vision, they just don't separate it from God's essence. The idea is very plainly found in scripture in many many many instances: "God is light" (1 John 1:5), "the Father of lights" (James 1:17), Christ is the "light of the world" (John 8:12). Of course no one thinks God in his essence is literally physical light. It is analogous, not just in the sense of metaphor like in Psalm 27:1, but in the sense that it is the way in which God appears to us immanently (Exodus 3:2). God appears as light many times in scripture like at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:7), or to the Israelites on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19:16-20). When describing the creation of the cosmos in Psalm 104:2, David described God as wrapping himself in light as a garment. There are different ways of describing this, such as God appearing to us through intermediaries, or impressions of the divine essence upon the imaginative faculties that cannot fully perceive the divine essence as it is. Still, these ideas are well founded. Understanding that scripture speaks of God as light does not imply one subscribed to Palamism. It's literally just the standard Christian position because it's in scripture.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the notion of God's essence being perceived as light is foundational to Christianity.
        You don’t need to tell me, I’ve preached on the Shekina before.
        However, Key word is being perceived as light. God appears as light, he isn’t literal light. The Holy Spirit is traditionally perceived in the form of a dove, he isnt a literal bird. >Catholics believe the concept too
        The Catholic Church allows belief in uncreated light but it doesn’t demand it.
        >it's called the Beatific Vision
        That’s different because that occurs in heaven as it part of Union with Actus Purus.
        >The idea is very plainly found in scripture in many many many instances:
        >"God is light" (1 John 1:5)
        Not talking about literal light, the whole “in him there in no darkness” shows it’s using light as a contrast to sin and/or evil.
        >"the Father of lights" (James 1:17)
        He did create light yes.
        >Christ is the "light of the world" (John 8:12).
        Again that’s blatantly metaphorical.
        >Of course no one thinks God in his essence is literally physical light.
        No, some people actually due (or at least that the logical conclusion of their beliefs). They call it the uncreated light, which means it’s UNCREATED. Only God is uncreated thing and even the incarnate flesh of Jesus was created. We don’t call it the uncreated flesh of Christ.
        >It is analogous, not just in the sense of metaphor like in Psalm 27:1, but in the sense that it is the way in which God appears to us immanently
        The Holy Spirit appeared immanently to men as a dove, we don’t talk about the uncreated feathers.
        You then cite a whole bunch of more scriptures I don’t disagree with, you are just reading the uncreated light into them.
        >When describing the creation of the cosmos in Psalm 104:2, David described God as wrapping himself in light as a garment.
        Genesis 1: 3-4, it literally says light is part of the created order. God can wrap himself in light as a garment, just as a man CREATE a sheet and wrap himself in it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/3JYYaTz.gif

        >the notion of God's essence being perceived as light is foundational to Christianity.
        You don’t need to tell me, I’ve preached on the Shekina before.
        However, Key word is being perceived as light. God appears as light, he isn’t literal light. The Holy Spirit is traditionally perceived in the form of a dove, he isnt a literal bird. >Catholics believe the concept too
        The Catholic Church allows belief in uncreated light but it doesn’t demand it.
        >it's called the Beatific Vision
        That’s different because that occurs in heaven as it part of Union with Actus Purus.
        >The idea is very plainly found in scripture in many many many instances:
        >"God is light" (1 John 1:5)
        Not talking about literal light, the whole “in him there in no darkness” shows it’s using light as a contrast to sin and/or evil.
        >"the Father of lights" (James 1:17)
        He did create light yes.
        >Christ is the "light of the world" (John 8:12).
        Again that’s blatantly metaphorical.
        >Of course no one thinks God in his essence is literally physical light.
        No, some people actually due (or at least that the logical conclusion of their beliefs). They call it the uncreated light, which means it’s UNCREATED. Only God is uncreated thing and even the incarnate flesh of Jesus was created. We don’t call it the uncreated flesh of Christ.
        >It is analogous, not just in the sense of metaphor like in Psalm 27:1, but in the sense that it is the way in which God appears to us immanently
        The Holy Spirit appeared immanently to men as a dove, we don’t talk about the uncreated feathers.
        You then cite a whole bunch of more scriptures I don’t disagree with, you are just reading the uncreated light into them.
        >When describing the creation of the cosmos in Psalm 104:2, David described God as wrapping himself in light as a garment.
        Genesis 1: 3-4, it literally says light is part of the created order. God can wrap himself in light as a garment, just as a man CREATE a sheet and wrap himself in it.

        Cont.
        >There are different ways of describing this, such as God appearing to us through intermediaries, or impressions
        I agree but all of these things are created. They are not forms that have existed for all eternity though, if they did genesis lied when it said God created light. It would also mean thinks like Energy and Matter would also need to be uncreated because you can’t have the Holy Spirit have an uncreated dove form if the matter that makes it up isn’t also uncreated.
        >Understanding that scripture speaks of God as light does not imply one subscribed to Palamism.
        I know.
        Palamism is the beliefs in “uncreated light”, EED etc. AND the belief that such views should be enforced on pain of anathema.
        >It's literally just the standard Christian position because it's in scripture.
        The Shekinah is in scripture and NO ONE is objecting to it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russian Orthodox Church, yes
      old believers are based on mistranslations of the bible from greek to slavonic
      who the frick is palamites? the rest of your post seems to be talking about some kinda sect and not orthodoxy, so i ignore

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the Palamite churches demand people affirm EED but they can’t even agree on what EED means because Palamas didn’t have a systematic theology
      This lmao. Literally every time I talk to an Orthodox they give me a different explanation of the essence/energies distinction than the last one I talked to. It's impossible to even affirm or deny this doctrine because literally no one knows what it is.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Orthodox says there is a real distinction between God's essence and his attributes. This comes with so many problems I don't know where to begin.

        Orthodox teach this due to the inherent tension between God's transcendence and immanence. Namely: How is it that we can know God despite God being incomprehensible to us? The Orthodox says it is through his energies or works in creation that are distinguished from his essence which is transcendent. It also solves the problem of there being a multiplicity of attributes in God despite being one.

        But the scholastics offered perfectly valid alternatives to this that don't go to the extremes that the Palamites go to.
        Palamism comes close to polytheism by positing any real distinctions in God that are apart from his essence. Aquinas argues that when we speak of God's attributes we are only making virtual distinctions. For example: Faith is one act but has two modes: thinking and assenting. These both belong to faith and faith cannot be taken apart from them, but it is possible to take them apart from faith. This is what a viritual distinction is.

        God is love, justice, mercy, etc. But these are only virtual distinctions in him. We perceive of them and talk of them by reference and analogies to created things (or if you want to take the Scotist route you can say we talk of them in relation to God univocally but Scotism runs into problems too and instead chooses to speak of these distinctions as formal distinctions). God appears multiple to us as temporal creatures, but in reality he a single complete unity, pure act.

        There can be no potential in God since only contingent beings can go from potentiality into actuality. To argue God has any potentiality in him undermines arguments from natural theology about the existence of God.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Orthodox says there is a real distinction between God's essence and his attributes.
          Orthodoxes have told me that, and I've thought that's what the doctrine was, but then other Orthodoxes told me that no that's not what it is and that they actually believe in divine simplicity but just "a different version of divine simplicity." So, I just have no idea what these people believe. Orthodoxes always try to paint the essence/energy distinction as a trademark doctrine of Orthodoxy that's unique to it, but if all the essence/energies distinction amounts to is just that there's a real distinction between God's essence and attributes, that's literally just what mainstream Islamic theology teaches.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah some modern Orthodox say Palamas didn't think the distinction was real but that has been the historic understanding. They're just trying to pander the doctrine to westerners which it is completely foreign to. Orthodox don't know what they believe anyway. They can't even agree why they disagree with the Western Christians about the filioque!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the Palamite churches demand people affirm EED but they can’t even agree on what EED means because Palamas didn’t have a systematic theology
          This lmao. Literally every time I talk to an Orthodox they give me a different explanation of the essence/energies distinction than the last one I talked to. It's impossible to even affirm or deny this doctrine because literally no one knows what it is.

          The essence/energy distinction is simply present in the church fathers.
          It's simply the logical distinction (not division) between God and his operation (energia in greek). It was used by saint gregory palamas (like did church fathers) to defend the idea that deification is possible. Orthodox commentators like Amphiloque radovich say that indeed it was not meant to be a system (and it isn't) but a simple defense of the deification and hesychast way. Because the polemics started by Barlaam criticizing the hesychast of mount athos who claimed to saw light and such, in the name of God's transcendance and his unknowability (necessary metaphysical idea, also very present and explicit in the fathers of the church of the first centuries). So he explained the paradox in theoretical term, God' operation (energia) is perfect and deifies saints. It isn't meant to be systematic, bound to a certain form of limitating explanation.
          Distinctions and unities are a fundamental principle of theology, used in concern of the distinctions of two natures of Christ or the three persons of the Trinity, yet, saint Gregory Palamas use the patristic principles that unitied precedes and dominate distinctions.
          Every nature has an energy, it's a principle maintained by saint maximos the confessor, friend of the pope saint martin the confessor : they defended the same idea against monothelist and monoenergist that Christ has two will and two energies, because he has two natures (council of Chalcedon) it means that he is perfectly God and perfectly human, and that he acts and operates (energia) as both.There isn't one of the two that is a doll. Thus Christ, in his divine nature, has a divine operation distinguishable in accord to our understanding (kat'epinoia) to his divine nature. Every nature has a distinct energy.
          God operates, in a perfect (uncreated) operation of which participate the deification of the saints. The distinction doesn't harm unity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            When I think about it, it appears to me rejecting the Essence/energy distinction is rejecting the idea Christ, as God, had an energy, and a will. He had an operation and he acted as a God.
            Denying God acted or operated in Christ is denying God operated our salvation in Christ.

            Because of the victory of Palamas against the agnostic (devoid of and denier of knowledge) Barlaam, the orthodox Church survived : a Church that believes in real deification, in the possibility of the knowledge of God, yet by maintained his transcendance. Gnostic (knower, oriented toward knowledge), no-agnostic, yet denying pantheistic gnosticism by maintaining the theoretical paradox of transcendance/immanence or nature/operation.
            I suspect that the american mind, too practical and protestantly very anti-rationalistic in regard to religion, cannot grasp the idea of theoretical (kat'epinoia, according to our understanding) distinction of a reality (God and his operations are one but paradoxically different and distinguishable).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Was the screenshot here meant to be somehow related to your post?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, just a screenshot I had of saint maximos, mentioned in my post

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The essence/energy distinction is simply present in the church fathers.
            No it isn't. That's why the Palamites are the only ones who obsessively enforce it under pain of eternal damnation.
            >It's simply the logical distinction (not division) between God and his operation (energia in greek).
            And by saying that you create the reverse problem of the other position. If its just a logical distinction, (as opposed to actually God being a composite) then its merely a creation of the mind for the purpose of distinction. It's not actually real. If its not actually real then those who reject or otherwise dismiss EED are actually closer to understanding God because they arent trying to force others to accept their mental creators as objective doctrine about the 1 True God.
            Either way EED collpases in on itself, you seemed to go with the "its not a real distinction" path. You will now need to go up against the other half of palamites you insist it is a real distinction.
            Since the rest of your post is just noise following this flawed premise I won't bother to address it.

            https://i.imgur.com/rhZaa4f.png

            When I think about it, it appears to me rejecting the Essence/energy distinction is rejecting the idea Christ, as God, had an energy, and a will. He had an operation and he acted as a God.
            Denying God acted or operated in Christ is denying God operated our salvation in Christ.

            Because of the victory of Palamas against the agnostic (devoid of and denier of knowledge) Barlaam, the orthodox Church survived : a Church that believes in real deification, in the possibility of the knowledge of God, yet by maintained his transcendance. Gnostic (knower, oriented toward knowledge), no-agnostic, yet denying pantheistic gnosticism by maintaining the theoretical paradox of transcendance/immanence or nature/operation.
            I suspect that the american mind, too practical and protestantly very anti-rationalistic in regard to religion, cannot grasp the idea of theoretical (kat'epinoia, according to our understanding) distinction of a reality (God and his operations are one but paradoxically different and distinguishable).

            >When I think about it, it appears to me rejecting the Essence/energy distinction is rejecting the idea Christ
            Yes that's because you have presupposed it must be correct. In truth its a complete farce without any biblical basis.
            >a Church that believes in real deification, in the possibility of the knowledge of God.......
            Yeah that's all a bunch of pseudo-intellectual noise.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            For the sake of potential lurkers I will answer you.
            God is simple. One. Yet, his simplicity isn't poverty, and he has in himself his fecondity, hid providence, his action, thus his energy. He is beyond his goodness, but he possess goodness. He is beyond all glory, but he has his glory.
            Ultimately it is united, but this union should not led to denial of the distinction. In the same way in the trinity, the essential unity and identity of the one God doesn't deny his behind deployed tri-hypostaticaly for the father.
            It's a paradox which has to be held, and unity doesn't deny the distinctions, nor the distinctions divide the unity. Because distinctions (contrary to divisions) doesn't oppose unity, nor unity distinction. Denying this distinction shows a poor understanding of this unity, as explained above.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the Palamite churches demand people affirm EED but they can’t even agree on what EED means because Palamas didn’t have a systematic theology
            This lmao. Literally every time I talk to an Orthodox they give me a different explanation of the essence/energies distinction than the last one I talked to. It's impossible to even affirm or deny this doctrine because literally no one knows what it is.

            >Such, then, are the instances
            of Undifference and of Differentiation in the Ineffable Unity and Subsistence of God. And if the term “Differentiation” be also applied to the bounteous act of Emanation whereby the Divine Unity, brimming Itself with goodness in the excess of Its Undifferenced Unity thus enters into multiplicity, yet an undifferenced unity worketh even in those differentiated acts whereby, in
            ceaseless communications, It bestows Being, Life, and Wisdom, and those other gifts of the all-creative Goodness in respect of which (as we behold the communications and the participants
            thereof) we celebrate those things wherein the creatures supernaturally participate. Yea, ‘tis a common and undifferenced activity of the whole Godhead that It is wholly and entirely
            communicated unto each of them that share It and unto none merely in part;197 even as the centre of a circle is shared by all the radii which surround it in a circle; and as there are many impressions of a seal all sharing in the seal which is their archetype while yet this is entire, nor is it only a part thereof that belongeth unto any of them. But the Incommunicable All-creative Godhead transcends all such symbols in that It is beyond apprehension nor hath It any other mode of communion such as to join It unto the participants.

            Saint denys the areopagitis, of divine names, chapter II "Concerning the Undifferencing and the Differentiation in Divinity, and the Nature of Divine
            Unification and Differentiation"
            Here is one expample of a father making the distinction between God and his benevolence/fecundity. He also explains in this chapter the very fondamental paradox of distinctions and unions in patristic theology.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/Z88L8Po.png

            [...]
            >Such, then, are the instances
            of Undifference and of Differentiation in the Ineffable Unity and Subsistence of God. And if the term “Differentiation” be also applied to the bounteous act of Emanation whereby the Divine Unity, brimming Itself with goodness in the excess of Its Undifferenced Unity thus enters into multiplicity, yet an undifferenced unity worketh even in those differentiated acts whereby, in
            ceaseless communications, It bestows Being, Life, and Wisdom, and those other gifts of the all-creative Goodness in respect of which (as we behold the communications and the participants
            thereof) we celebrate those things wherein the creatures supernaturally participate. Yea, ‘tis a common and undifferenced activity of the whole Godhead that It is wholly and entirely
            communicated unto each of them that share It and unto none merely in part;197 even as the centre of a circle is shared by all the radii which surround it in a circle; and as there are many impressions of a seal all sharing in the seal which is their archetype while yet this is entire, nor is it only a part thereof that belongeth unto any of them. But the Incommunicable All-creative Godhead transcends all such symbols in that It is beyond apprehension nor hath It any other mode of communion such as to join It unto the participants.

            Saint denys the areopagitis, of divine names, chapter II "Concerning the Undifferencing and the Differentiation in Divinity, and the Nature of Divine
            Unification and Differentiation"
            Here is one expample of a father making the distinction between God and his benevolence/fecundity. He also explains in this chapter the very fondamental paradox of distinctions and unions in patristic theology.

            >God is simple. One. Yet, his simplicity isn't poverty
            No one has ever said or even implied his oneness is poverty. You are just making noise to sound deep.
            >*more pointless noise* He is beyond his goodness, but he possess goodness. He is beyond all glory, but he has his glory.
            Words words word.
            >Ultimately it is united, but this union should not led to denial of the distinction. In the same way in the trinity
            Completely different so false equivalency. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same divine nature, but are also a uniqueness to each person of the trinity.
            As you said in your previous post, EED (as your understand it) is a logical distinction. To call the persons of the trinity merely a logical distinction is heretical.
            >It's a paradox which has to be held
            No it doesn’t because it’s just wrong and built on a false equivalency. Your just further proving my original post when I critique Palamites for not having any real theology. You are just appeal to “woah mystery and paradoxes” to get around your theology being trash.
            Everything after that is just more fart huffing and white noise, and since it’s built upon the presuppositions I’ve already torn apart I need not address it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No one has ever said or even implied his oneness is poverty.
            You don't need to say or imply it more than by denying the distinction between God and his divine action (energia).
            >share the same divine nature
            The One divine nature cannot be shared. It is the essence of the Father, of which the Son and the Spirit respectively is engendered and proceed. And essentialy they stay One.
            I explained to you, by giving you an example, how we constantly do simultaneously distinctions and unions. Not all distinctions and unions are the same. And I didn't say it's the same. I could give another example of distinction/union with christology : Christ is God and human, one in person (union), two in nature (distinction). Distinctions and unions don't contradict each other, as I explained to you, and as you think and profess, at least in the case of the theology of Palamas. (I remember another post of yours in another thread denying the interest of the oeucumenical council of Chalcedon though, so you don't get and might not recognize this distinction, real but not a division).
            So in the same way in God in regard to his action/providence, there is a "distinction without division, and a unity without confusion" (formula of the council of chalcedon regarding the two natures of Christ united in one person).
            In the same way other oeucumenical councils defended two wills, and two energies in Christ, not in discord, real and distinct, but unified in will and in action.
            Christ really acted as God, and as a human, as one person, and so God really has an action. The fact Christ as a divine nature/essence AND a divine will and energy (action in greek) is in fact a clear indication we already in councils dogmatized the principle that God has a will and action distinct from his essence, as well as that each and any nature has a will too.
            God has a divine and perfect good will for everything.
            There is no point denying the obvious doctrine of the Church fathers and such a necessity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            sage

            >You don't need to say or imply it more than by denying the distinction between God and his divine action (energia).
            >let me tell you what you believe
            Citation needed.

            >The One divine nature cannot be shared. *proceeds to explain how it is share just with unnecessary autism*
            uh huh, and with that I’m going to stop. There really isn’t much point in me continuing considering;
            1) you have already presupposed your conclusion
            2) you are just posting walls of text that are in essence a mixture of meaningless drivel or statements that are so basic that they can serve only as a mere deflection from the topic.
            >Again we should not rack that wits with curious or ‘doubtful disputations’ (Rom, 14:1), for so we shall distract and tire them give them, and give occasions to make them cast off the care of all. That age of the church which was most fertile in subtle questions was most barren in religion; for it makes people think religion to be only a matter of cleverness in tying and untying of knots. The brains of men inclining that way are hotter usually than their hearts (The Bruised Reed, Pg 31)
            So when you are ready you can actually address my points (see

            https://i.imgur.com/YUYkpEX.jpeg

            [...]
            [...]
            >Most youtube apologists like Dyer are very ignorant about Palamas
            Well then your issue isn’t with me.
            You should really take up the problems with them and get them to stop shitting up “orthodoxy”.
            I wish you the best of luck, unironically.

            However overall it would seem your response to
            1) was you presupposed
            2) was a deflection
            3) was “nah it all makes sense just read my walls of text” which to be fair is a better response than #2
            4) you proved me right on with the Meletian schism.
            5) you just completely failed to address at all.
            6) not even mentioned
            7) was what I hope was an unintentional misrepresentation
            8) you got what the saints said wrong and/or pulled from your ass
            9) you failed to address
            10 & 11) also went ignored.

            ).
            Otherwise I wish you best.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >>The One divine nature cannot be shared. *proceeds to explain how it is share just with unnecessary autism*
            You don't agree with the church fathers who all explain how the essence isn't divided, composed and that the three persons being of the essence of the Father means they are essentialy one and the same, God ? Even in this case, you can't grasp distinction and unity, not division and confusion, but essential identity ? You don't get it neither in christology because I remember you not believing chalcedon really defended orthodoxy (and telling you believe in the validity of nestorians,...).
            There is a distinction we make betweem God in essence and his benevolence deployed tri-hypostaticaly
            There are not divided essentialy, no distinction implies a division.
            I just tell it for potential lurkers

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Orthodox teach this due to the inherent tension between God's transcendence and immanence.

          There is no such tension.
          God isn't limited by human problems.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There’s a book on it, and I have it

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >here is a wall of text by a guy
          >yes you will need to read a wall of text to get a single opinion on a matter
          >no this guys opinion is not authoritative

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Roman Catholics are literally in communion with monophysites, Nestorians, and Eastern churches who believe in EED. Stop this dishonesty about any sort of lack of unity in faith amongst the Orthodox when the Roman Catholic church can't even agree on what faith the Church of Christ actually holds to.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the fact my denomination can’t figure out what it’s position on baptism or soteriology is isn’t actually an issue because *insert different denomination* has people who express Christology differently.
        Okay…… and coconuts are furry, I don’t see how this even approaches something addressing my points?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're "criticism" of Orthodoxy is nothing more than projection of your own sect's flaws.
          Roman Catholicism has no systematic theology. The catechism teaches Muslims and Hindus worship the same God as RCs do. Thomism is fundamentally incompatible with EED, yet they still allow in churches who actively confess it to be the true theology of God into Rome's communion. They teach the filioque is the correct understanding of the Trinity, yet nearly all Uniate churches do not confess the filioque. Latin tradition forbids children under the age of 7 from partaking in communion, yet Uniate churches all allow infants and older to take communion once they are confirmed. This age isn't even a standard, for children who are on their death beds being able to take communion at any age. Where is the consistency? Where is the "conciliar infallibility"? I'm going to ignore most of your other statements about certain saints and about what St. Palamas actually said since it's clear all you read are quote mines.

          So then let's consider Protestantism. Let's just ignore all the schisms, splits, wars, and feuds brought about by the easy to understand doctrines like sola scriptura and sola fide. First and foremost, can you prove you even have the faith of the Apostles? How do you know what books are scripture? Why can't I add or take away as many books as I want in my Bible as I want? Matter of fact, who are you to tell me what I believe in is wrong? You can't bind my conscience. You believe the neither the Church nor any individual has the ability to bind the believer's conscience. Excommunication does nothing in your paradigm. So all you are left with is some arbitrary set of beliefs that you think anyone who calls themselves Christian is required to believe in because... you said so?

          I know you aren't going to respond serious, but for the sake of the sacrifices Christ, the Apostles, and all those who professed the faith despite persecution, please humble yourself.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You're "criticism" of Orthodoxy is nothing more than projection of your own sect's flaws.
            >Roman Catholicism has no systematic theology. The catechism teaches……..
            Yeah yeah we get it coconuts are furry.
            This is all just deflection and dishonest arguing.
            >I'm going to ignore most of your other statements
            You have ignored all my statements you are just seething about Catholics, you haven’t actually addressed a single 1 of the 11 point.
            >So then let's consider Protestantism…….
            More deflection

            >I know you aren't going to respond serious
            Of course not, I refuse to provide serious responses to unserious posts.
            I provided 11 points to the OP you have just deflected. So with all that in mind I call on you for the sake of the sacrifices Christ, the Apostles, and all those who professed the faith despite persecution, please humble yourself, :))

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      These groups are basically sedevacantist/donatist, with the differences between them being very shallow.
      >Old Believer Orthodox
      Most of these are people who confuse the substance of the faith with certain ritualistic practices. They claim stuff like their sign of the cross dates back to the apostles. They essentially devolved to being full on ethnic groups on the level of israelites or not even having clergy. Non-nikonian groups often ended becoming weird cults, with many practicing self-immolation.
      Any attempts at discussion either ended in Edinoverie, which ironically exists because of patriarch Nikon's own efforts, or with outright rejection of any discussion.
      Schisms like the russian-constantinopole one isn't unheard of, look at the meletian one or the one during St Chrysostom's time.
      >8
      St Maximus the confessor used a lot of neoplatonism and also formed the idea of the Logoi, the divine principles which govern creation, so the uncreated light being a symbol doesn't mean it's created.
      St Leo outright says the apostles saw his glory/the unspeakable and unapproachable vision of God/shared majesty of the Father and Son reserved till eternal life on the mount and they could barely stand to look upon it. Glory as a term is theological in that it's shared by all members of the Trinity to show their equal divine dignity.
      This is in parallel with St Moses talking to the Lord, along with him seeing God's "back", which the cappadocians outright presented as reflections of God's glory/activity and therefore uncreated.
      >5
      God can manifest as light just as he can manifest as an angel of the Lord or a bird. If the Tabor Light is created, does that mean the Holy Spirit literally fashioned a bird body which he then discarded? God is pure Spirit, more than even angels which can be seen or touched, so God just created an angel body then? EED just makes it have sense that it is God manifested through his energies.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >These groups are basically sedevacantist/donatist
        Not a real argument, just you saying you don’t like them and then asserting they are wrong.
        >Schisms like the russian-constantinopole one isn't unheard of, look at the meletian one
        BORING! If both sides on the Meletian Schism were truth Christian and within the church than the Church must not be limited to a single institution. Thus your example proves me correct.
        >St Maximus the confessor used a lot of neoplatonism and also formed the idea of the Logoi, the divine principles which govern creation, so the uncreated light being a symbol doesn't mean it's created.
        Complete ass pull with zero substantiation.
        >St Leo outright says the apostles saw his glory/the unspeakable and unapproachable vision of God/shared majesty of the Father and Son reserved till eternal life
        Literally the exact OPPOSITE of what he wrote.
        >And therefore rightly and significantly He [Jesus] had promised that some of the disciples standing would not taste death until they should see the Son Of Man coming in His kingdom, that is, in the regal brightness that
        >specifically pertains to the nature of His assumed humanity,
        Christ’s humanity and that pertaining to it is created.
        >and which He wanted to be manifest to these three men. For that ineffable and inaccessible vision of the Deity itself which is reserved to eternal life for the pure in heart, they were in no manner able to gaze on and behold while still clothed in moral flesh.
        That unspeakable and unapproachable vision of God that they They were in NO MANNER ABLE TO GAZE ON while clothed in mortal flesh (alive).
        >Therefore the Lord reveals His glory to His chosen witnesses, and brightens that form of the body which is common to the rest of men
        Again we see here that the Lord is showing his glory through the created form he assumed at the incarnation which is also common to the rest of men.
        Ergo the light (that pertains to the nature of His assumed humanity) was created.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >God can manifest as light
        Correct, manifest
        >just as he can manifest as an angel of the Lord or a bird.
        Yes
        >If the Tabor Light is created
        It was, that’s what manifestations are. To claim otherwise is to state God has an actual form.
        >does that mean the Holy Spirit literally fashioned a bird body which he then discarded?
        I can’t state for certain he took on the bones, flesh, feathers etc of a bird, I didn’t touch it, it could have been a phantasmal bird. But the Good Lord is not limited so either is possible.
        >God is pure Spirit
        Correct, so he isn’t energy which is 1 of the issues uncreated light runs into because that means God is an energy being.
        >so God just created an angel body then?
        Yes angels are in the created order.
        If you think otherwise that is heretical.
        >EED just makes it have sense that it is God manifested through his energies.
        Manifestations are created.
        If the light is uncreated that means it has EXISTED FOREVER, and therefore God has an energy form that has existed FOREVER.
        >This is just nitpicking over Nicea 2 being enforced
        This is misrepresentation so blatant I struggle not to believe it’s intention. It’s obviously about the issues arising from mandating something that has no warrant in scripture as a condition of salvation. It’s not an issue about enforcement, it’s an issue of soteriology.
        >Literal nitpick.
        Cope, you are the guy that proves my position right but bringing up the Meletian Schism.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Manifestations are created.
          If so, are they even manifestations if you don't interact with God directly (in the sense of not seeing his outright face but more akin to his back i.e. energies)?
          >It’s obviously about the issues arising from mandating something that has no warrant in scripture as a condition of salvation. It’s not an issue about enforcement, it’s an issue of soteriology.
          This is another point I have with your arguments. Why should I take them if your position is contradictory in that you are catholic but you just see Nicea 2 as optional? St John of Damascus argued from scripture and the differences between the new and old covenant, so it's not like there aren't scriptural arguments for it. Catholics accept it as dogmatic, then you're contradicting your own church, if it's no longer obligatory anymore and the truth is debatable, why be miffed that someone stands on the side of veneration being dogmatic? The dogmas of a church are supposed to be necesarry basics.

          >These groups are basically sedevacantist/donatist
          Not a real argument, just you saying you don’t like them and then asserting they are wrong.
          >Schisms like the russian-constantinopole one isn't unheard of, look at the meletian one
          BORING! If both sides on the Meletian Schism were truth Christian and within the church than the Church must not be limited to a single institution. Thus your example proves me correct.
          >St Maximus the confessor used a lot of neoplatonism and also formed the idea of the Logoi, the divine principles which govern creation, so the uncreated light being a symbol doesn't mean it's created.
          Complete ass pull with zero substantiation.
          >St Leo outright says the apostles saw his glory/the unspeakable and unapproachable vision of God/shared majesty of the Father and Son reserved till eternal life
          Literally the exact OPPOSITE of what he wrote.
          >And therefore rightly and significantly He [Jesus] had promised that some of the disciples standing would not taste death until they should see the Son Of Man coming in His kingdom, that is, in the regal brightness that
          >specifically pertains to the nature of His assumed humanity,
          Christ’s humanity and that pertaining to it is created.
          >and which He wanted to be manifest to these three men. For that ineffable and inaccessible vision of the Deity itself which is reserved to eternal life for the pure in heart, they were in no manner able to gaze on and behold while still clothed in moral flesh.
          That unspeakable and unapproachable vision of God that they They were in NO MANNER ABLE TO GAZE ON while clothed in mortal flesh (alive).
          >Therefore the Lord reveals His glory to His chosen witnesses, and brightens that form of the body which is common to the rest of men
          Again we see here that the Lord is showing his glory through the created form he assumed at the incarnation which is also common to the rest of men.
          Ergo the light (that pertains to the nature of His assumed humanity) was created.

          >Christ’s humanity and that pertaining to it is created.
          Because the human and divine nature indwell one another in St Pope Leo's christology, where the two's properties work in close connection.
          Further, if the energy is created why did it hurt them? Why why did St Leo said it was the unnaproachable and ineffable? The Lord just created a light to give them pain instead of, say, creating something, in order to show he's divine? Again, the logic is that they saw the uncreated God and it was too much for them, despite most of it being hidden by his flesh.
          >Complete ass pull with zero substantiation.
          Look at the screenshot in my previous reply. Everyone agrees he took a lot of neoplatonism. He even arguments that Christ doesn't denote a species or nature, but the composite hypostasis.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but so that the one nature was blended with the other.
            The blending or mixing of the natures, that sounds very Monophysite.
            >If so, are they even manifestations if you don't interact with God directly
            They are interacting with God, what you define as “directly” will need to be clarified. The Cow that God spoken through was interacting with God. God manifested as the burning bush, the bush wasn’t uncreated.
            >This is another point I have with your arguments. Why should I take them if your position is contradictory in that you are catholic but you just see Nicea 2 as optional?
            Nicea 2 is the HARDEST THING I struggle with as a catholic and I don’t in any way hide it from this board, as you have clearly shown and other can testify. I don’t consider that a contradiction as although I own a single icon I do take issue and have voiced both on this board, and to my priest, that MANDATING of Icons or EED as something required as part of church soteriology, as simply wrong.
            Where is the contradiction?
            >Because the human and divine nature indwell one another in St Pope Leo's christology, where the two's properties work in close connection.
            Okay so Christs humanity is still created….. and so is the light.
            >Further, if the energy is created why did it hurt them?
            If I shine a torch directly in your eyes does it hurt?
            >Why did St Leo said it was the unnaproachable and ineffable?
            ARGH, PLEASE STOP “of the Deity ITSELF which is reserved to eternal life for the pure in heart, they were IN NO MANNER ABLE to gaze on and behold WHILE STILL CLOTHED IN MORTAL FLESH.”
            They didn’t die when they saw the light because they weren’t looking at uncreated divinity. He brightened “that form of the body which is common to the rest of men”.
            >the logic is that they saw the uncreated God
            Then they would be dead.
            Sauce: The Bible.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/B5SvuG4.jpeg

        >7
        This is just nitpicking over Nicea 2 being enforced, which (most) catholics support too.
        >4
        Literal nitpick.
        >2 and 3
        Youtube polemics are very bad at explaining his system, which is outlined more clearly in his 150 chapters, nevermind his untranslated works.
        [...]
        Ignore him, cathbro. Dude is seething some of friends have become dyerites that he's been posting this for years. His arguments are based mostly on youtube videos and he's stanning Barlaam despite never reading his writings (He once said his writings are all burned when they are still preserved in patrologia greaca).
        He also denies Nicea 2's ideas despite supposedly being catholic. Arguing with him is a waste of time.
        [...]
        >Orthodox says there is a real distinction between God's essence and his attributes. This comes with so many problems I don't know where to begin.
        This is the thing. Most youtube apologists like Dyer are very ignorant about Palamas himself and only read guys like Florovsky or Romanides (who's literally been rightfully accused by his own bishop as a heretic). Most of them can't read greek. St Palamas just said the distinction is as real the one between persons. The distinction is Kat epinoia, which can either be a formal or virtual distinction.
        https://ro.scribd.com/document/280463470/Palamas-Transformed
        [...]
        >believe that satisfaction/forensic theories of atonement are just as valid if not more valid than the complementary recapitulatory theories and have a very solid basis in both scripture and the early Church.
        This is actually orthodox, most of youtube apologetics get this contrarianism from Romanides and his modernist school of thought. Saints pre-schism and after the schism contradict them.
        https://kalebatlantaprime.medium.com/saint-mark-of-ephesus-on-original-sin-and-the-atonement-d3b963b00548

        https://i.imgur.com/B5SvuG4.jpeg

        >7
        This is just nitpicking over Nicea 2 being enforced, which (most) catholics support too.
        >4
        Literal nitpick.
        >2 and 3
        Youtube polemics are very bad at explaining his system, which is outlined more clearly in his 150 chapters, nevermind his untranslated works.
        [...]
        Ignore him, cathbro. Dude is seething some of friends have become dyerites that he's been posting this for years. His arguments are based mostly on youtube videos and he's stanning Barlaam despite never reading his writings (He once said his writings are all burned when they are still preserved in patrologia greaca).
        He also denies Nicea 2's ideas despite supposedly being catholic. Arguing with him is a waste of time.
        [...]
        >Orthodox says there is a real distinction between God's essence and his attributes. This comes with so many problems I don't know where to begin.
        This is the thing. Most youtube apologists like Dyer are very ignorant about Palamas himself and only read guys like Florovsky or Romanides (who's literally been rightfully accused by his own bishop as a heretic). Most of them can't read greek. St Palamas just said the distinction is as real the one between persons. The distinction is Kat epinoia, which can either be a formal or virtual distinction.
        https://ro.scribd.com/document/280463470/Palamas-Transformed
        [...]
        >believe that satisfaction/forensic theories of atonement are just as valid if not more valid than the complementary recapitulatory theories and have a very solid basis in both scripture and the early Church.
        This is actually orthodox, most of youtube apologetics get this contrarianism from Romanides and his modernist school of thought. Saints pre-schism and after the schism contradict them.
        https://kalebatlantaprime.medium.com/saint-mark-of-ephesus-on-original-sin-and-the-atonement-d3b963b00548

        >Most youtube apologists like Dyer are very ignorant about Palamas
        Well then your issue isn’t with me.
        You should really take up the problems with them and get them to stop shitting up “orthodoxy”.
        I wish you the best of luck, unironically.

        However overall it would seem your response to
        1) was you presupposed
        2) was a deflection
        3) was “nah it all makes sense just read my walls of text” which to be fair is a better response than #2
        4) you proved me right on with the Meletian schism.
        5) you just completely failed to address at all.
        6) not even mentioned
        7) was what I hope was an unintentional misrepresentation
        8) you got what the saints said wrong and/or pulled from your ass
        9) you failed to address
        10 & 11) also went ignored.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Well then your issue isn’t with me.
          It was because you keep derailing ortho thread with the same copypasta and arguments as if this board is your personal blog. Now I realise it's pointless considering how much of a atheistic, materialistic and crazy mess is this board.
          >you proved me right on with the Meletian schism.
          Not really. Autochephalous churches can disagreements and can be both right/wrong or one's wrong. Doesn't mean they aren't part of the church, but I digress as I have better things to do.
          I'm tapping out.
          >You should really take up the problems with them and get them to stop shitting up “orthodoxy”.
          There are already others on this.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It was because you keep derailing ortho thread with the same copypasta and arguments
            Well Orthos derail other threads and behave poorly online generally. I know,
            I know, I should behave better then them. ARGHH, but still if your going to claim to be the One and Only True Church get ready to have to deal with challenges.
            >as if this board is your personal blog.
            Wait…… it’s not?
            >Now I realise it's pointless considering how much of a atheistic, materialistic and crazy mess is this board.
            Look I’ll stand with you are brothers against atheism, but if you claim to be the only true church on earth I reserve the right to challenge that.
            >Doesn't mean they aren't part of the church
            I agree, cause the church isn’t limited to a single institution.
            >There are already others on this.
            Well I’m unironically glad.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Well Orthos derail other threads and behave poorly online generally.
            I have literally seen you derail more ortho threads than the number of threads which were centered around Dyer or orthodoxy. Further, one can just adjust settings to not be recommended any EO content. The worst of them isn't anywhere close to this.
            >I know, I know, I should behave better then them. ARGHH,
            Then why do you continue wasting your time on this? Just move on to your life, debates aren't worth your spiritual health.
            >but still if your going to claim to be the One and Only True Church get ready to have to deal with challenges.
            People have debated and given arguments, but you still appear in every thread despite most people not caring about wasting their time on a guy who disagrees with them. You're the only one insisting of getting responses. At least make your own thread or find some other place to actually discuss things because no one will put in effort to an anonymous dude online.
            >Wait…… it’s not?
            And you still engage in the same attitude you know is bad even after admitting. If you want debates, at least be serious, not post sneed images and replies like they do something, especially since you want precision in explanations.
            >Look I’ll stand with you are brothers against atheism, but if you claim to be the only true church on earth I reserve the right to challenge that.
            Bro, don't waste your time on atheists. Most won't care even if you answer every single point. My life isn't about owning them and fighting it is more complex than online debates.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So why would these groups be invalid? Why shouldn't I follow these groups if I want to be true Orthodox?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we claim our traditons go back to the apostles (good)
        >they claim their traditions go back to the apostles (bad)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >7
      This is just nitpicking over Nicea 2 being enforced, which (most) catholics support too.
      >4
      Literal nitpick.
      >2 and 3
      Youtube polemics are very bad at explaining his system, which is outlined more clearly in his 150 chapters, nevermind his untranslated works.

      I don't agree with the essence-energy distinction but the notion of God's essence being perceived as light is foundational to Christianity. Catholics believe the concept too, it's called the Beatific Vision, they just don't separate it from God's essence. The idea is very plainly found in scripture in many many many instances: "God is light" (1 John 1:5), "the Father of lights" (James 1:17), Christ is the "light of the world" (John 8:12). Of course no one thinks God in his essence is literally physical light. It is analogous, not just in the sense of metaphor like in Psalm 27:1, but in the sense that it is the way in which God appears to us immanently (Exodus 3:2). God appears as light many times in scripture like at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:7), or to the Israelites on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19:16-20). When describing the creation of the cosmos in Psalm 104:2, David described God as wrapping himself in light as a garment. There are different ways of describing this, such as God appearing to us through intermediaries, or impressions of the divine essence upon the imaginative faculties that cannot fully perceive the divine essence as it is. Still, these ideas are well founded. Understanding that scripture speaks of God as light does not imply one subscribed to Palamism. It's literally just the standard Christian position because it's in scripture.

      Ignore him, cathbro. Dude is seething some of friends have become dyerites that he's been posting this for years. His arguments are based mostly on youtube videos and he's stanning Barlaam despite never reading his writings (He once said his writings are all burned when they are still preserved in patrologia greaca).
      He also denies Nicea 2's ideas despite supposedly being catholic. Arguing with him is a waste of time.

      Orthodox says there is a real distinction between God's essence and his attributes. This comes with so many problems I don't know where to begin.

      Orthodox teach this due to the inherent tension between God's transcendence and immanence. Namely: How is it that we can know God despite God being incomprehensible to us? The Orthodox says it is through his energies or works in creation that are distinguished from his essence which is transcendent. It also solves the problem of there being a multiplicity of attributes in God despite being one.

      But the scholastics offered perfectly valid alternatives to this that don't go to the extremes that the Palamites go to.
      Palamism comes close to polytheism by positing any real distinctions in God that are apart from his essence. Aquinas argues that when we speak of God's attributes we are only making virtual distinctions. For example: Faith is one act but has two modes: thinking and assenting. These both belong to faith and faith cannot be taken apart from them, but it is possible to take them apart from faith. This is what a viritual distinction is.

      God is love, justice, mercy, etc. But these are only virtual distinctions in him. We perceive of them and talk of them by reference and analogies to created things (or if you want to take the Scotist route you can say we talk of them in relation to God univocally but Scotism runs into problems too and instead chooses to speak of these distinctions as formal distinctions). God appears multiple to us as temporal creatures, but in reality he a single complete unity, pure act.

      There can be no potential in God since only contingent beings can go from potentiality into actuality. To argue God has any potentiality in him undermines arguments from natural theology about the existence of God.

      >Orthodox says there is a real distinction between God's essence and his attributes. This comes with so many problems I don't know where to begin.
      This is the thing. Most youtube apologists like Dyer are very ignorant about Palamas himself and only read guys like Florovsky or Romanides (who's literally been rightfully accused by his own bishop as a heretic). Most of them can't read greek. St Palamas just said the distinction is as real the one between persons. The distinction is Kat epinoia, which can either be a formal or virtual distinction.
      https://ro.scribd.com/document/280463470/Palamas-Transformed

      Because while I appreciate many aspects of Greek theology I am a Latin at heart. I have concerns with the Palamite essence-energy distinction, fully affirm the filioque as absolutely essential for a proper understanding of the Trinity, and believe that satisfaction/forensic theories of atonement are just as valid if not more valid than the complementary recapitulatory theories and have a very solid basis in both scripture and the early Church. I also affirm the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. The west is my home, but I still love my fellow Orthobros despite my disagreements with them theologically.

      >believe that satisfaction/forensic theories of atonement are just as valid if not more valid than the complementary recapitulatory theories and have a very solid basis in both scripture and the early Church.
      This is actually orthodox, most of youtube apologetics get this contrarianism from Romanides and his modernist school of thought. Saints pre-schism and after the schism contradict them.
      https://kalebatlantaprime.medium.com/saint-mark-of-ephesus-on-original-sin-and-the-atonement-d3b963b00548

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nice post anon, are you in the university, I'm passing sometimes in stras.. ? Or do you have a contact ?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Youtube polemics are very bad at explaining his system
        >all these priests and theologians they don’t actually get it
        >what you need to do is read 150 walls of text and even more shit that is untranslated
        No.

        >he's stanning Barlaam
        Yeah I am, WOAHHHHHHH LETS GO BARLAAM, PALAMITES ON SUICIDE WATCH!!!
        >(He once said his writings are all burned when they are still preserved in patrologia greaca).
        A bold claim, I’m going to need a citation on that one because I don’t recall that.
        Many of his Eastern Works were most likely destroy given Byzantiums pension for destroying any text they didn’t like,
        But considering he later moved to Italy it would make sense that NOT ALL his writings would be destroyed.
        So I await that citation with great interest anon :))

        >Arguing with him is a waste of time.
        Because you always lose.
        You always bring up the Meletian schism despite it proving me right.
        You always blindly assert shit with zero citation.

        https://i.imgur.com/GyiyxrZ.jpeg

        shut up Black person

        >get asked why you aren’t orthodox
        >provide 10 reasons why and a clarifying question
        >get sworn at
        Checks out.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anon I’m still waiting for you to provide a citation for that bold claim
        >He once said his writings are all burned when they are still preserved in patrologia greaca
        See (

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

        >Youtube polemics are very bad at explaining his system
        >all these priests and theologians they don’t actually get it
        >what you need to do is read 150 walls of text and even more shit that is untranslated
        No.

        >he's stanning Barlaam
        Yeah I am, WOAHHHHHHH LETS GO BARLAAM, PALAMITES ON SUICIDE WATCH!!!
        >(He once said his writings are all burned when they are still preserved in patrologia greaca).
        A bold claim, I’m going to need a citation on that one because I don’t recall that.
        Many of his Eastern Works were most likely destroy given Byzantiums pension for destroying any text they didn’t like,
        But considering he later moved to Italy it would make sense that NOT ALL his writings would be destroyed.
        So I await that citation with great interest anon :))

        >Arguing with him is a waste of time.
        Because you always lose.
        You always bring up the Meletian schism despite it proving me right.
        You always blindly assert shit with zero citation.

        [...]
        >get asked why you aren’t orthodox
        >provide 10 reasons why and a clarifying question
        >get sworn at
        Checks out.

        )
        If you can’t I can only assume you were bearing false witness about me.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          NTA anyway but if you still have doubts if you can find the works of Palamas, here is the migne containing the works of Palamas, Barlaam and Akyndinos :
          https://archive.org/details/patrologiaecurs45migngoog/page/n6/mode/1up

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

          >Youtube polemics are very bad at explaining his system
          >all these priests and theologians they don’t actually get it
          >what you need to do is read 150 walls of text and even more shit that is untranslated
          No.

          >he's stanning Barlaam
          Yeah I am, WOAHHHHHHH LETS GO BARLAAM, PALAMITES ON SUICIDE WATCH!!!
          >(He once said his writings are all burned when they are still preserved in patrologia greaca).
          A bold claim, I’m going to need a citation on that one because I don’t recall that.
          Many of his Eastern Works were most likely destroy given Byzantiums pension for destroying any text they didn’t like,
          But considering he later moved to Italy it would make sense that NOT ALL his writings would be destroyed.
          So I await that citation with great interest anon :))

          >Arguing with him is a waste of time.
          Because you always lose.
          You always bring up the Meletian schism despite it proving me right.
          You always blindly assert shit with zero citation.

          [...]
          >get asked why you aren’t orthodox
          >provide 10 reasons why and a clarifying question
          >get sworn at
          Checks out.

          >But considering he later moved to Italy it would make sense that NOT ALL his writings would be destroyed.
          Looks like you didn't read them, so now that I gave you the source (in latin and greek), you can start reading them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >here is the migne containing the works of Palamas, Barlaam and Akyndinos
            No I wanted the citation for the anons claim about what I said.
            >Looks like you didn't read them,
            Of course not, nor do I claim to. I have far better shit to read than all that.

            >>The One divine nature cannot be shared. *proceeds to explain how it is share just with unnecessary autism*
            You don't agree with the church fathers who all explain how the essence isn't divided, composed and that the three persons being of the essence of the Father means they are essentialy one and the same, God ? Even in this case, you can't grasp distinction and unity, not division and confusion, but essential identity ? You don't get it neither in christology because I remember you not believing chalcedon really defended orthodoxy (and telling you believe in the validity of nestorians,...).
            There is a distinction we make betweem God in essence and his benevolence deployed tri-hypostaticaly
            There are not divided essentialy, no distinction implies a division.
            I just tell it for potential lurkers

            >You don't agree with the church fathers who all explain how the essence isn't divided
            I didn’t say it was divide.
            You need to stop shadowboxing.
            A large chunk of what you say next is built on that false notion (you do that a lot) so I’ll skip ahead
            >You don't get it neither in christology because I remember you not believing chalcedon really defended orthodoxy
            I think the miaphysite issue was largely linguistic, yes. However, that is another issue, which is a distraction from the topic. I think we can all clearly see that in the fact it hasn’t had any effect on the Coptics or other Orientals living out the Christian faith.
            Orthopraxis is a pretty strong case.
            >and telling you believe in the validity of nestorians…..
            I believe in the validity of SOME Nestorians. I obviously side against Nestorius in the 2nd council particularly around the status of Mary, however many modern “Nestorians” wether they have changed or not, are part of the body of believers.
            Now let’s get back to the TOPIC.
            >There is a distinction we make betweem God in essence and his benevolence deployed tri-hypostaticaly
            For any potential lurkers what he’s trying to express in a needlessly Reddit-tier way is that there is a distinction between the divine nature shared by all members of the trinity and the persons of the trinity.
            What he fails AGAIN to address that that distinction is real, whereas he has already said (

            [...]
            The essence/energy distinction is simply present in the church fathers.
            It's simply the logical distinction (not division) between God and his operation (energia in greek). It was used by saint gregory palamas (like did church fathers) to defend the idea that deification is possible. Orthodox commentators like Amphiloque radovich say that indeed it was not meant to be a system (and it isn't) but a simple defense of the deification and hesychast way. Because the polemics started by Barlaam criticizing the hesychast of mount athos who claimed to saw light and such, in the name of God's transcendance and his unknowability (necessary metaphysical idea, also very present and explicit in the fathers of the church of the first centuries). So he explained the paradox in theoretical term, God' operation (energia) is perfect and deifies saints. It isn't meant to be systematic, bound to a certain form of limitating explanation.
            Distinctions and unities are a fundamental principle of theology, used in concern of the distinctions of two natures of Christ or the three persons of the Trinity, yet, saint Gregory Palamas use the patristic principles that unitied precedes and dominate distinctions.
            Every nature has an energy, it's a principle maintained by saint maximos the confessor, friend of the pope saint martin the confessor : they defended the same idea against monothelist and monoenergist that Christ has two will and two energies, because he has two natures (council of Chalcedon) it means that he is perfectly God and perfectly human, and that he acts and operates (energia) as both.There isn't one of the two that is a doll. Thus Christ, in his divine nature, has a divine operation distinguishable in accord to our understanding (kat'epinoia) to his divine nature. Every nature has a distinct energy.
            God operates, in a perfect (uncreated) operation of which participate the deification of the saints. The distinction doesn't harm unity.

            ) regarding EED that,
            >It's simply the logical distinction
            It’s not actually real only in the brain.
            I have explained not only why that is obviously a dishonest comparison (see

            https://i.imgur.com/lhtuATp.jpeg

            [...]
            >God is simple. One. Yet, his simplicity isn't poverty
            No one has ever said or even implied his oneness is poverty. You are just making noise to sound deep.
            >*more pointless noise* He is beyond his goodness, but he possess goodness. He is beyond all glory, but he has his glory.
            Words words word.
            >Ultimately it is united, but this union should not led to denial of the distinction. In the same way in the trinity
            Completely different so false equivalency. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same divine nature, but are also a uniqueness to each person of the trinity.
            As you said in your previous post, EED (as your understand it) is a logical distinction. To call the persons of the trinity merely a logical distinction is heretical.
            >It's a paradox which has to be held
            No it doesn’t because it’s just wrong and built on a false equivalency. Your just further proving my original post when I critique Palamites for not having any real theology. You are just appeal to “woah mystery and paradoxes” to get around your theology being trash.
            Everything after that is just more fart huffing and white noise, and since it’s built upon the presuppositions I’ve already torn apart I need not address it.

            ) but also the theological issues that arise from his position (

            https://i.imgur.com/lfnZY1B.png

            >The essence/energy distinction is simply present in the church fathers.
            No it isn't. That's why the Palamites are the only ones who obsessively enforce it under pain of eternal damnation.
            >It's simply the logical distinction (not division) between God and his operation (energia in greek).
            And by saying that you create the reverse problem of the other position. If its just a logical distinction, (as opposed to actually God being a composite) then its merely a creation of the mind for the purpose of distinction. It's not actually real. If its not actually real then those who reject or otherwise dismiss EED are actually closer to understanding God because they arent trying to force others to accept their mental creators as objective doctrine about the 1 True God.
            Either way EED collpases in on itself, you seemed to go with the "its not a real distinction" path. You will now need to go up against the other half of palamites you insist it is a real distinction.
            Since the rest of your post is just noise following this flawed premise I won't bother to address it.

            [...]
            >When I think about it, it appears to me rejecting the Essence/energy distinction is rejecting the idea Christ
            Yes that's because you have presupposed it must be correct. In truth its a complete farce without any biblical basis.
            >a Church that believes in real deification, in the possibility of the knowledge of God.......
            Yeah that's all a bunch of pseudo-intellectual noise.

            ).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Of course not
            I will not discuss with you on your inconsistency concerning other heresies, and your criteria on them. You are not in a good spirit, aren't logical and don't act like a christian. I think you have a problem and lost equilibrium in life.

            >I didn’t say it was divide
            You said palamism falls either into making God a composite (thus a division in parts), or just joins divine simplicity and has no reason to claim a superiority.
            Or real distinction can also be a logical distinction. It is real as it really distinguish two real and two really different things (not essentially different, but one is, another is relative : God and his providence as uncreated grace, his benevolence, fecundity, manifestation tri-hypostatically. The fact it is a logical distinction doesn't mean it isn't real. There are here two point of views that have to be maintained paradoxically, but not in contradiction, like in everything in theology.
            The fact you fail to understand, and that I explain to you using analogies. Is that a distinction, in this case that we perceive i. the intellect (kat' epinoia), is still a real distinction according to a point of view (of the manifestation's of God's essence) God and his energy (operation) are really distinct and really united, according to two point of view. That's what a distinction imply. Same for christology and for the trinity, in other ways (each persons of the trinity has it's respective properties, and each nature of Christ too, the difference of the essence and the energy is specifically thay the essence is God considered in himself and God considered as benevolent/deifying,... Considered means "kat'epinoia" (according to the understanding). So ultimately God and his operations are united, that's what Palamas defends against the idea of created-only grace, but distinct according to the relative nature of it (the action being relative to the subject and not the opposite). No one claims God is composed (thus divided).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I will not discuss with you on your inconsistency concerning other heresies, and your criteria on them.
            The “inconsistency” you speak of is that I don’t relentlessly seethe about them.
            I’m actually very consistent, I’m even ok with people believing in EED. I just object to the mandating of it.
            >You are not in a good spirit
            That’s very hypocritical, all you have done is ignore my 10 points.
            >aren't logical
            Something about a pot and a kettle
            > and don't act like a christian.
            Anon, I……. You obsess over autistic word magic and demand absolute theological conformity. You believe that membership in an institution is required for salvation while following a church that can’t even figure out its own soteriology. Unironically I I think you have a problem, considering that you would deny Christianhood to people who have utterly detected their lives to christ solely on the basis they don’t believe in a distinction you yourself admit is merely a logical/mental distinction. I suggest you realign the equilibrium of your life, touch grass and crack open a Bible. Put your faith in Christ, and he will show you what is important.

            >You said palamism falls
            Okay stop there, you seem to have already gone off the rails or seriously misunderstood.
            You said
            >You don't agree with the church fathers who all explain how the essence isn't divided
            And then I said “I didn’t say it was divide”.
            Because the essence of God isn’t divide, he isn’t a composite.
            So a simple yes or no.
            Did the Father say the Essence of God was divided by the persons of the trinity?
            Don’t worry I’ll answer for you.
            No. Ergo anything else that follow is just deflection. Everything else follows on from that false notion until here
            >Maybe you are just too material-minded qnd think we are talking about a material detrrmination of God (composed as you said).
            That’s a completely divergence from anything I said, basically just an ass pull from you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            According to a certain point of view the two are one, according to another they are two. Both are valid and one point of view doesn't deny the other, since they are not in opposition.
            God considered as benevolent, and as an essence are distinct, not composed, but distinguished according to the point of view of manifestation. God and his deification of saints are distinct, yet it leads to unity. The unity doesn't deny this distinction. According to a point of view doesn't mean it isn't real : it is real according to a certain reality : according to the relative reality of God benevolence, which ultimately leads and stays in unity with God in himself. Nor the word "logical" deny God and his perfect providence : logical doesn't mean unreal. Denying God's uncreated providence was the opinion of Barlaam who denied the possibility of deification, for the same incapacity he was in, as buddhist, to understand that God's perfection and unity doesn't stop Him from revealing himself, and thus that his unity doesn't contradict distinctions within Himself. Him and his perfect benevolence revealed tri-hypostatically.
            Maybe you are just too material-minded qnd think we are talking about a material detrrmination of God (composed as you said). And don't understand some distinction can be real according to a pov, and unreal according to another. I gave you examples of distinctions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Logical means according to a certain logic, not unreal. This logic is that of the point of view of a relative reality. The energy of God is relative to Him. It's an explanation of the unity God offered to humans, which are not united to Him. So it's necessarily paradoxical.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I will not discuss with you on your inconsistency concerning other heresies, and your criteria on them.
            The “inconsistency” you speak of is that I don’t relentlessly seethe about them.
            I’m actually very consistent, I’m even ok with people believing in EED. I just object to the mandating of it.
            >You are not in a good spirit
            That’s very hypocritical, all you have done is ignore my 10 points.
            >aren't logical
            Something about a pot and a kettle
            > and don't act like a christian.
            Anon, I……. You obsess over autistic word magic and demand absolute theological conformity. You believe that membership in an institution is required for salvation while following a church that can’t even figure out its own soteriology. Unironically I I think you have a problem, considering that you would deny Christianhood to people who have utterly detected their lives to christ solely on the basis they don’t believe in a distinction you yourself admit is merely a logical/mental distinction. I suggest you realign the equilibrium of your life, touch grass and crack open a Bible. Put your faith in Christ, and he will show you what is important.

            >You said palamism falls
            Okay stop there, you seem to have already gone off the rails or seriously misunderstood.
            You said
            >You don't agree with the church fathers who all explain how the essence isn't divided
            And then I said “I didn’t say it was divide”.
            Because the essence of God isn’t divide, he isn’t a composite.
            So a simple yes or no.
            Did the Father say the Essence of God was divided by the persons of the trinity?
            Don’t worry I’ll answer for you.
            No. Ergo anything else that follow is just deflection. Everything else follows on from that false notion until here
            >Maybe you are just too material-minded qnd think we are talking about a material detrrmination of God (composed as you said).
            That’s a completely divergence from anything I said, basically just an ass pull from you.

            Cont.
            >And don't understand some distinction
            Is there a real substantive distinction between God essence and his energy?
            A simple yes or no will suffice.
            If you answer with a wall of text I will ignore

            Logical means according to a certain logic, not unreal. This logic is that of the point of view of a relative reality. The energy of God is relative to Him. It's an explanation of the unity God offered to humans, which are not united to Him. So it's necessarily paradoxical.

            This is all just word magic, it’s pure sophistry and doesn’t actually mean anything and you are just using it as a cope to try and explain away your paradoxical claims.
            Is THIS the best Palamism has to offer?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I will not discuss with you on your inconsistency concerning other heresies, and your criteria on them.
            The “inconsistency” you speak of is that I don’t relentlessly seethe about them.
            I’m actually very consistent, I’m even ok with people believing in EED. I just object to the mandating of it.
            >You are not in a good spirit
            That’s very hypocritical, all you have done is ignore my 10 points.
            >aren't logical
            Something about a pot and a kettle
            > and don't act like a christian.
            Anon, I……. You obsess over autistic word magic and demand absolute theological conformity. You believe that membership in an institution is required for salvation while following a church that can’t even figure out its own soteriology. Unironically I I think you have a problem, considering that you would deny Christianhood to people who have utterly detected their lives to christ solely on the basis they don’t believe in a distinction you yourself admit is merely a logical/mental distinction. I suggest you realign the equilibrium of your life, touch grass and crack open a Bible. Put your faith in Christ, and he will show you what is important.

            >You said palamism falls
            Okay stop there, you seem to have already gone off the rails or seriously misunderstood.
            You said
            >You don't agree with the church fathers who all explain how the essence isn't divided
            And then I said “I didn’t say it was divide”.
            Because the essence of God isn’t divide, he isn’t a composite.
            So a simple yes or no.
            Did the Father say the Essence of God was divided by the persons of the trinity?
            Don’t worry I’ll answer for you.
            No. Ergo anything else that follow is just deflection. Everything else follows on from that false notion until here
            >Maybe you are just too material-minded qnd think we are talking about a material detrrmination of God (composed as you said).
            That’s a completely divergence from anything I said, basically just an ass pull from you.

            >I’m even ok with people believing in EED
            So you don't think it'd false ? So it's true ? Or it doesn't matter ?
            The anathema against Barlaam doesn't necessarily apply against the papist Church. Palamas simply meant that God really is transcendant and really deifies, through his operation. Hence a distinction, with a unity.
            Some western theologians in louvain notably have expressed the unity of the different explanation of uncreated grace.
            The most important is that in the west created grace and habitus have tended to make completely forgot that it is true deification, and not created gifts of the holy spirit, which are promised to good christians.
            The distinction of God and his uncreated operation simply justifies the deification and the transcendance of God which have to be maintained paradoxically. But it is not a system, so the same truth can be expressed in different ways. I explained it already in different ways.

            >demand absolute theological conformity
            I don't think so.

            >Is there a real substantive distinction between God essence and his energy?
            No. Not substantial, but real. A difference based on the relativity of one to another. Ultimately Palamas says the unities dominate distinctions, but don't deny them. You, or anyone, denying this distinction is in error. God really manifest himself to saints, and his manifestation is necessarily distinct from him, since it is manifestation.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So you don't think it'd false?
            Well since no one can agree on what it is, yes, no, both and all at the same time.
            >Or it doesn't matter?
            I don’t think it matters to salvation.
            It wasn’t part of the deposit of faith.
            >The anathema against Barlaam doesn't necessarily apply against the papist Church.
            It’s matter because anyone who doesn’t actively affirm that the light of Tabor is the uncreated form of God is condemned to hell.

            >which have to be maintained paradoxically.
            I think when you need to post a wall of text and then say “yeah but the paradox is important” you really need to re-assess your theology.

            >I don't think so.
            Well your Church is pretty clear on the matter.

            >God really manifest himself to saints
            NO ONE in this thread has ever denied that. To mention it is pointless and a diversion.
            >and his manifestation is necessarily distinct from him
            Correct and the distinction is real because the manifestation is in the created or.
            >since it is manifestation.
            YES, YES! YOU ARE SO CLOSE, NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE.

            >>Is there a real substantive distinction between God essence and his energy?
            >No.
            Okay then it shouldn’t be enforced under penalty of anathema because it’s inconsequential if people don’t affirm it.
            I’m glad we could reach an accord.
            I’m off to bed.
            God bless.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *is in the created order

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I cannot answer right now as I am busy and don't mich time with internet, but I might in a few days

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's consequential if people deny the uncreated character of grace (God's energy, or simply God considered as operating), like you do. Because then deification would be impossible.
            Barlaam denied the possibility of deification and knowledge of God, Palamas justified it. Not by a system, but the point is : deification occurs, it's God's operation through the Trinity, God dwelling in Himself and unknowable can be distinguished from that. He is at the same time transcendant and immanent.
            It's not a substantial difference, but a relative one, And fundamental.
            >God really manifest himself to saints
            >NO ONE in this thread has ever denied that. To mention it is pointless and a diversion.
            That was the starting point of Barlaam's heresy : denial of the deification in hesychasm and accusation of illusion, relayed in western modern anti-palamism. In response Palamas defended that deification and made a distinction for that. The divine essence and the divine dynamism/economy of salvation giving itself to saints in the trinity in the economy of salvation. God as One and God as in dynamically giving himself to other.Then to the degree of reception of this perfect gift (notably in the case of the Virgin mary), God's gift manifest as a special gift. As explained again in the second chapter of the divine names by saint Dionysios.
            >Yea, ‘tis a
            common and undifferenced activity of the whole Godhead that It is wholly and entirely
            communicated unto each of them that share It and unto none merely in part;197 even as the centre
            of a circle is shared by all the radii which surround it in a circle;198 and as there are many impressions
            of a seal all sharing in the seal which is their archetype while yet this is entire, nor is it only a part
            thereof that belongeth unto any of them. [...]
            Denys is also the basis of the mystical traditions in the western medieval age too, until later scholasticism.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This thread is still alive?

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

          >Youtube polemics are very bad at explaining his system
          >all these priests and theologians they don’t actually get it
          >what you need to do is read 150 walls of text and even more shit that is untranslated
          No.

          >he's stanning Barlaam
          Yeah I am, WOAHHHHHHH LETS GO BARLAAM, PALAMITES ON SUICIDE WATCH!!!
          >(He once said his writings are all burned when they are still preserved in patrologia greaca).
          A bold claim, I’m going to need a citation on that one because I don’t recall that.
          Many of his Eastern Works were most likely destroy given Byzantiums pension for destroying any text they didn’t like,
          But considering he later moved to Italy it would make sense that NOT ALL his writings would be destroyed.
          So I await that citation with great interest anon :))

          >Arguing with him is a waste of time.
          Because you always lose.
          You always bring up the Meletian schism despite it proving me right.
          You always blindly assert shit with zero citation.

          [...]
          >get asked why you aren’t orthodox
          >provide 10 reasons why and a clarifying question
          >get sworn at
          Checks out.

          Here in this thread:
          https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/16482421/#q16484699
          >Because you always lose.
          No, because talking to you is pointless. You do not even entertain the idea of an alternative interpretation when speaking about something, you often times resort to petty insults, you sometimes use circular claim/arguments that don't really answer to anything and are mostly there just to be contrarian to EO. You put more effort into the same copypasta, reaction images and that fry meme, which just shows the lack of respect/empathy as people you have towards EO. Multiple I argued with multiple sources in such threads for nothing, which I'm mostly through with, other than this one time.

          >God can manifest as light
          Correct, manifest
          >just as he can manifest as an angel of the Lord or a bird.
          Yes
          >If the Tabor Light is created
          It was, that’s what manifestations are. To claim otherwise is to state God has an actual form.
          >does that mean the Holy Spirit literally fashioned a bird body which he then discarded?
          I can’t state for certain he took on the bones, flesh, feathers etc of a bird, I didn’t touch it, it could have been a phantasmal bird. But the Good Lord is not limited so either is possible.
          >God is pure Spirit
          Correct, so he isn’t energy which is 1 of the issues uncreated light runs into because that means God is an energy being.
          >so God just created an angel body then?
          Yes angels are in the created order.
          If you think otherwise that is heretical.
          >EED just makes it have sense that it is God manifested through his energies.
          Manifestations are created.
          If the light is uncreated that means it has EXISTED FOREVER, and therefore God has an energy form that has existed FOREVER.
          >This is just nitpicking over Nicea 2 being enforced
          This is misrepresentation so blatant I struggle not to believe it’s intention. It’s obviously about the issues arising from mandating something that has no warrant in scripture as a condition of salvation. It’s not an issue about enforcement, it’s an issue of soteriology.
          >Literal nitpick.
          Cope, you are the guy that proves my position right but bringing up the Meletian Schism.

          >Correct, so he isn’t energy which is 1 of the issues uncreated light runs into because that means God is an energy being.
          To me, if there's no distinction or a purely rational distiction between essence and energy, then they are God's essence is energy.
          >Yes angels are in the created order.
          This runs into multiple problems: does this mean there was a prior incarnation? Dud Christ take full or partial angelic nature? What would such a thing mean for the incarnation? Etc. Further, some interpret it as the word for angel meaning messenger. Even so, it's easier to think he energetically manifested as an angel.
          >If the light is uncreated that means it has EXISTED FOREVER, and therefore God has an energy form that has existed FOREVER.
          Energy manifests differently in regards to different people, such as God's judgement of devastation upon Israel is both a punishment, becayse of their falling away, and a blessing, as this chastisement had the role of humbling them/keeping them from falling further. Same with God's judgement with the flood, the righteous Noah is lifted up and the corrupted are taken down.
          The energy appearing as light is arguably because of the shared human perception.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Here in this thread
            Anon, I……. Are you blink or is my English that bad.
            You tried to cite an opposing side to Baarlam about what Baarlam believed and then I said
            >there isn't really anything from the non-palamite side
            Which is to say there isn’t much, ESPECIALLY in comparison to Palamites
            >on the matter, which is pretty normal. The ”incorrect” side of a council usually had their works suppressed if not destroyed outright.
            Which is true, the Byzantines regularly suppressed opposing thought and were hostile to Baarlam and his writings.
            So when you said
            >He once said his writings are all burned

            https://i.imgur.com/B5SvuG4.jpeg

            >7
            This is just nitpicking over Nicea 2 being enforced, which (most) catholics support too.
            >4
            Literal nitpick.
            >2 and 3
            Youtube polemics are very bad at explaining his system, which is outlined more clearly in his 150 chapters, nevermind his untranslated works.
            [...]
            Ignore him, cathbro. Dude is seething some of friends have become dyerites that he's been posting this for years. His arguments are based mostly on youtube videos and he's stanning Barlaam despite never reading his writings (He once said his writings are all burned when they are still preserved in patrologia greaca).
            He also denies Nicea 2's ideas despite supposedly being catholic. Arguing with him is a waste of time.
            [...]
            >Orthodox says there is a real distinction between God's essence and his attributes. This comes with so many problems I don't know where to begin.
            This is the thing. Most youtube apologists like Dyer are very ignorant about Palamas himself and only read guys like Florovsky or Romanides (who's literally been rightfully accused by his own bishop as a heretic). Most of them can't read greek. St Palamas just said the distinction is as real the one between persons. The distinction is Kat epinoia, which can either be a formal or virtual distinction.
            https://ro.scribd.com/document/280463470/Palamas-Transformed
            [...]
            >believe that satisfaction/forensic theories of atonement are just as valid if not more valid than the complementary recapitulatory theories and have a very solid basis in both scripture and the early Church.
            This is actually orthodox, most of youtube apologetics get this contrarianism from Romanides and his modernist school of thought. Saints pre-schism and after the schism contradict them.
            https://kalebatlantaprime.medium.com/saint-mark-of-ephesus-on-original-sin-and-the-atonement-d3b963b00548

            You lied, or at the very least were being extremely uncharitable with my argument.

            >No, because talking to you is pointless.
            Hey I’m not the one that lied about the other person.
            >You do not even entertain the idea of an alternative interpretation when speaking about something
            That’s so hypocritical coming from Palamites, the moment a text seems to say something that refutes their theology they will wrap themselves in knots to change the context and refuse any interpretation that might possibly challenge their presuppositions.
            >you often times resort to petty insults
            I’ll admit my behaviour could use improvment, it think it’s the toxic nature of polemics, but I should treat those who curse me better. But as you can see in this threat, I provided 10 answers to the OP, no insults, and what happens, stuff like this (

            https://i.imgur.com/GyiyxrZ.jpeg

            shut up Black person

            )

            >You put more effort into the same copypasta
            It’s a copy pasta, it doesn’t take effort, it’s still yet to be debooonked so I keep posting it.
            >reaction images
            They take zero effort either.
            >and that fry meme
            Again basically zero effort, I just have it saved, I don’t Google it every time.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Anon, I……. Are you blink or is my English that bad. You tried to cite an opposing side to Baarlam about what Baarlam believed and then I said
            Yeah, which shows that manuscripts of his writings during the palamite debate still existed. Shoot, all writings in PG and PL are all assorted to be around the same dates or years, especially since these are the letters Palamas and Barlaam sent to one another, so the simple fact that they still existed to be collected centuries later and St Gennadios, who was very much latin-influenced, was able to read them debunks your whole idea of them being destroyed or suppressed.
            >there isn't really anything from the non-palamite side
            This sentence gives the outright impression that you meant nothing other than fragments existed in your view.
            >Which is to say there isn’t much, ESPECIALLY in comparison to Palamites
            "Really anything" and "much" aren't the same thing. At best, you were imprecise in that old message.
            >Which is true, the Byzantines regularly suppressed opposing thought and were hostile to Baarlam and his writings.
            Barlaam's writings still exist in full, whereas the works of Gemistos Plethon, like his Nomoi, were explicitly burned on record. You did say they were often were destroyed, so I recalled that part. You're essentially calling me a liar over precision when you yourself weren't precise regarding the supposed amount.
            >Hey I’m not the one that lied about the other person.
            This is snother problem others of lying often over imprecise terminology on a board like this. Some of us are too busy too spend all their time here.
            >That’s so hypocritical coming from Palamites, the moment a text seems to say something that refutes their theology they will...
            I could say the same about catholics, but the truth is this just presenting and arguing one's interpretation over the other, of course either side will argue they are right.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >debunks your whole idea of them being destroyed or suppressed.
            No it doesn’t. That simply a leap of logic, “a guy was able to collect letters between him and Palamas centuries later, therefore his ideas and writings were never suppressed”.
            Look I will admit that (if true) I was not aware that so much of his writing survived, and I hope you are right.
            >This sentence gives the outright impression
            Well I’m sorry you got that impression, but consider when i was coming from after YOU cited a anti-Baarlam sauce as the basis for what Baarlam believed, it’s not like you were desperate to present unbiased accounts of Baarlams writings.
            >At best, you were imprecise in that old message.
            Okay……. and?
            >You did say they were often were destroyed, so I recalled that part.
            Writings in Rome & Byzantium were regularly destroyed, do you deny that?
            >You're essentially calling me a liar over precision
            No I said it seems like you were liars, but I pre-clarified that “or at the very least were being extremely uncharitable with my argument.”
            >This is snother problem others of lying often over imprecise terminology
            Sorry I couldn’t translate this. If you fix it up all address it.
            >This is IQfy, what do you expect? Why even take a Pepe shut up reply seriously?
            Okay im confused, are you ass blasted I seem mean, (

            https://i.imgur.com/oWoO50o.jpeg

            This thread is still alive?

            [...]
            Here in this thread:
            https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/16482421/#q16484699
            >Because you always lose.
            No, because talking to you is pointless. You do not even entertain the idea of an alternative interpretation when speaking about something, you often times resort to petty insults, you sometimes use circular claim/arguments that don't really answer to anything and are mostly there just to be contrarian to EO. You put more effort into the same copypasta, reaction images and that fry meme, which just shows the lack of respect/empathy as people you have towards EO. Multiple I argued with multiple sources in such threads for nothing, which I'm mostly through with, other than this one time.
            [...]
            >Correct, so he isn’t energy which is 1 of the issues uncreated light runs into because that means God is an energy being.
            To me, if there's no distinction or a purely rational distiction between essence and energy, then they are God's essence is energy.
            >Yes angels are in the created order.
            This runs into multiple problems: does this mean there was a prior incarnation? Dud Christ take full or partial angelic nature? What would such a thing mean for the incarnation? Etc. Further, some interpret it as the word for angel meaning messenger. Even so, it's easier to think he energetically manifested as an angel.
            >If the light is uncreated that means it has EXISTED FOREVER, and therefore God has an energy form that has existed FOREVER.
            Energy manifests differently in regards to different people, such as God's judgement of devastation upon Israel is both a punishment, becayse of their falling away, and a blessing, as this chastisement had the role of humbling them/keeping them from falling further. Same with God's judgement with the flood, the righteous Noah is lifted up and the corrupted are taken down.
            The energy appearing as light is arguably because of the shared human perception.

            )
            >just shows the lack of respect/empathy
            Or do you not give a frick?
            >and did it for fun.
            And this is one of my big issue with you anon, and other Palamites, what do you even believe? If you were consistent you would say something like, “yeah that’s bad but that’s not an excuse for you to behave poorly”. But no, it’s a for three but not for me standard.
            >The simple fact you have an image depicting EO like that makes people have the reasonable conclusion that you are here just to annoy them
            So is that wrong? 5 seconds ago you were saying “This is IQfy, what do you expect?”.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’ll admit my behaviour could use improvment, it think it’s the toxic nature of polemics, but I should treat those who curse me better. But as you can see in this threat, I provided 10 answers to the OP, no insults, and what happens, stuff like this
            This is IQfy, what do you expect? Why even take a Pepe shut up reply seriously? Guy probably didn't read your comment and did it for fun.
            >It’s a copy pasta, it doesn’t take effort, it’s still yet to be debooonked so I keep posting it.
            It's not so much the pasta but the fact that you keep posting everytime EO are mentioned. Everyone is tired of this being spammed over and over despite presenting a case against this. It's like being surprised that someone is angry at you for making the same unpleasant joke about them everytime you meet and then insisting to have the same pointless conversation when they aren't interested. There's a difference being heavy into polemics and toxic.
            >Again basically zero effort, I just have it saved, I don’t Google it every time.
            The simple fact you have an image depicting EO like that makes people have the reasonable conclusion that you are here just to annoy them, not actually interested in any reasonable conversation.

            >Multiple I argued with multiple sources in such threads
            Anon your not alone in this struggle, I can’t tell you many how many times I’ve dealt with bullshit assertions and people bring sauces to threads that are actually saying the exact opposite of what they are claiming.

            >To me, if there's no distinction or a purely rational distiction between essence and energy, then they are God's essence is energy.
            Well take that up with this anon ([...]) he’s the one saying the distinction is just a logical distinction. Your arguments with him no me. You will need to sort your own theology amongst yourselves. Hope you 2 have fun, let me know the conclusion.
            >This runs into multiple problems
            Do you seriously not think angels are in the created order?
            >does this mean there was a prior incarnation?
            No
            >Dude Christ take full or partial angelic nature?
            No clue, I’m not experianced in angelic nature, but angelic nature is created.
            >What would such a thing mean for the incarnation?
            Nothing.
            >Etc.
            Etc what? No of your questions so far have been difficult to answer.
            >Further, some interpret it as the word for angel meaning messenger.
            Okay but angels are still in the created order and the manifested form God
            Assumed was in the created order.
            >Even so, it's easier to think he energetically manifested as an angel.
            So he created an Angel body out of energy (which is in the created order) rather than matter (which is also in the created order).
            >Energy manifests differently in regards to different people
            Yes but if you are manifesting as different forms the manifestations are STILL in the created order.

            >Well take that up with this anon (

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

            It's consequential if people deny the uncreated character of grace (God's energy, or simply God considered as operating), like you do. Because then deification would be impossible.
            Barlaam denied the possibility of deification and knowledge of God, Palamas justified it. Not by a system, but the point is : deification occurs, it's God's operation through the Trinity, God dwelling in Himself and unknowable can be distinguished from that. He is at the same time transcendant and immanent.
            It's not a substantial difference, but a relative one, And fundamental.
            >God really manifest himself to saints
            >NO ONE in this thread has ever denied that. To mention it is pointless and a diversion.
            That was the starting point of Barlaam's heresy : denial of the deification in hesychasm and accusation of illusion, relayed in western modern anti-palamism. In response Palamas defended that deification and made a distinction for that. The divine essence and the divine dynamism/economy of salvation giving itself to saints in the trinity in the economy of salvation. God as One and God as in dynamically giving himself to other.Then to the degree of reception of this perfect gift (notably in the case of the Virgin mary), God's gift manifest as a special gift. As explained again in the second chapter of the divine names by saint Dionysios.
            >Yea, ‘tis a
            common and undifferenced activity of the whole Godhead that It is wholly and entirely
            communicated unto each of them that share It and unto none merely in part;197 even as the centre
            of a circle is shared by all the radii which surround it in a circle;198 and as there are many impressions
            of a seal all sharing in the seal which is their archetype while yet this is entire, nor is it only a part
            thereof that belongeth unto any of them. [...]
            Denys is also the basis of the mystical traditions in the western medieval age too, until later scholasticism. #) he’s the one saying the distinction is just a logical distinction.
            This, again, just seems like improper or imprecise words. Distinction is kat epinoia (in the mind) which can translate as either formal or conceptual to my knowledge.
            >Do you seriously not think angels are in the created order?
            They are. I never denied that.
            >No
            How so? Angels, unlike God, aren't pure spirit, along with them on multiple instances clearly being shown as physical.
            >No clue, I’m not experianced in angelic nature, but angelic nature is created.
            But if Christ took angelic nature, does he still have it or not? Does he have three being given birth? It a opens a whole can of worms.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Okay but angels are still in the created order and the manifested form God
            Angels are their own beings with their own personalities and minds, not just some lifeless or mindless entities to manifest within.
            Also, since the Word can just mean messenger in those passages reffering to the Angel of the Lord, we don't know exactly how he looked like.
            [...]
            >The blending or mixing of the natures, that sounds very Monophysite.
            Indwelling isn't mixing. I can take two circus rings, make them be in each other, but not mix. An example for Christ by St John Damascus would be a sword heated in fire. The properties of fire, like warmth, indwell in the properties of the blade, like sharpness, but they don't mix.
            Also, Monophysitism is the idea of him only having a divine nature and not a real/full human nature, so you accidentally Miaphysites.
            >They are interacting with God, what you define as “directly” will need to be clarified.
            I said it, God's back is akin to his energies, with the cappadocians saying
            >God manifested as the burning bush, the bush wasn’t uncreated.
            He was the Fire.
            >If I shine a torch directly in your eyes does it hurt?
            Then why is Christ shining a sign of him being God? Moses did too and the light was the result of his direct interactions with God, who saw his back I.e. uncreated light. This shows a precedence that for it, hurting but not killing. Even so, Christ didn't mean to hurt them, so he made sure it wouldn't.
            >ARGH, PLEASE STOP “of the Deity ITSELF which is reserved to eternal life for the pure in heart, they were IN...
            That's more of an explanation of why it was painful for the split second they did see.
            >Nicea 2 is the HARDEST THING I struggle with as a catholic and I don’t in any way hide it from this board, as you have clearly shown and other can testify.
            This is much clearer, but the problem it still makes your position questionable when you willingly start arguments or debates.

            >Well Orthos derail other threads and behave poorly online generally.
            I have literally seen you derail more ortho threads than the number of threads which were centered around Dyer or orthodoxy. Further, one can just adjust settings to not be recommended any EO content. The worst of them isn't anywhere close to this.
            >I know, I know, I should behave better then them. ARGHH,
            Then why do you continue wasting your time on this? Just move on to your life, debates aren't worth your spiritual health.
            >but still if your going to claim to be the One and Only True Church get ready to have to deal with challenges.
            People have debated and given arguments, but you still appear in every thread despite most people not caring about wasting their time on a guy who disagrees with them. You're the only one insisting of getting responses. At least make your own thread or find some other place to actually discuss things because no one will put in effort to an anonymous dude online.
            >Wait…… it’s not?
            And you still engage in the same attitude you know is bad even after admitting. If you want debates, at least be serious, not post sneed images and replies like they do something, especially since you want precision in explanations.
            >Look I’ll stand with you are brothers against atheism, but if you claim to be the only true church on earth I reserve the right to challenge that.
            Bro, don't waste your time on atheists. Most won't care even if you answer every single point. My life isn't about owning them and fighting it is more complex than online debates.

            Cont.
            So if God manifests as an angel that creates all kinds of problems, cause then he needs to take on angelic nature or something, but the Holy Spirit can Manifest as a Dove, and not need to take on Dove Nature?
            But 1 thing for sure is God, since all time, has had the dual uncreated form of both Light and Flame, and that’s not an issue for you?
            >Then why is Christ shining a sign of him being God?
            Because it was a manifesto of the indwelling divinity of Christ, still created tho. See genesis.
            >Moses did too and the light was the result of his direct interactions with God
            Yes that what light reflecting from his face from seeing the shekinah, it wasn’t indwelling, just wasn’t reflecting because he to had just seen the shekinah, he was manifesting is from within.
            Still created btw.
            >That's more of an explanation of why it was painful for the split second they did see.
            That is pure cope, that’s not what it says.
            Remember what I said about wrapping yourselves in knots.

            >This is much clearer
            I’m glad :))
            >but the problem it still makes your position questionable when you willingly start arguments or debates.
            Well then you personally don’t need to take me seriously, I’m still gonna do it tho. I also don’t post the OPs just responses, usually just a simple question “which orthodoxy?” So am I really the one starting the debate, or just asking questions?
            >I have literally seen you derail more ortho threads
            I’m just asking a simple question.
            >Then why do you continue wasting your time on this?
            >And you still engage in the same attitude you know is bad even after admitting.
            >If you want debates, at least be serious, not post sneed images and replies like they do something
            Anon You LITERALLY posted the equivalent of “uh it’s IQfy bro” when I raised this (

            https://i.imgur.com/GyiyxrZ.jpeg

            shut up Black person

            )
            >This is IQfy, what do you expect? Why even take a Pepe shut up reply seriously?
            Are you capable of logical consistency?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Im verySorry, my spelling is terrible.
            >Moses did too and the light was the result of his direct interactions with God
            *Yes that what light reflecting from his face from seeing the shekinah (many sermons have explained this, is one of the most common interpretations), it wasn’t indwelling, Jesus wasn’t reflecting, because he hadn’t just seen the shekinah before the apostles arrived, he was manifesting is from within.
            Still created btw.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Multiple I argued with multiple sources in such threads
            Anon your not alone in this struggle, I can’t tell you many how many times I’ve dealt with bullshit assertions and people bring sauces to threads that are actually saying the exact opposite of what they are claiming.

            >To me, if there's no distinction or a purely rational distiction between essence and energy, then they are God's essence is energy.
            Well take that up with this anon (

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

            It's consequential if people deny the uncreated character of grace (God's energy, or simply God considered as operating), like you do. Because then deification would be impossible.
            Barlaam denied the possibility of deification and knowledge of God, Palamas justified it. Not by a system, but the point is : deification occurs, it's God's operation through the Trinity, God dwelling in Himself and unknowable can be distinguished from that. He is at the same time transcendant and immanent.
            It's not a substantial difference, but a relative one, And fundamental.
            >God really manifest himself to saints
            >NO ONE in this thread has ever denied that. To mention it is pointless and a diversion.
            That was the starting point of Barlaam's heresy : denial of the deification in hesychasm and accusation of illusion, relayed in western modern anti-palamism. In response Palamas defended that deification and made a distinction for that. The divine essence and the divine dynamism/economy of salvation giving itself to saints in the trinity in the economy of salvation. God as One and God as in dynamically giving himself to other.Then to the degree of reception of this perfect gift (notably in the case of the Virgin mary), God's gift manifest as a special gift. As explained again in the second chapter of the divine names by saint Dionysios.
            >Yea, ‘tis a
            common and undifferenced activity of the whole Godhead that It is wholly and entirely
            communicated unto each of them that share It and unto none merely in part;197 even as the centre
            of a circle is shared by all the radii which surround it in a circle;198 and as there are many impressions
            of a seal all sharing in the seal which is their archetype while yet this is entire, nor is it only a part
            thereof that belongeth unto any of them. [...]
            Denys is also the basis of the mystical traditions in the western medieval age too, until later scholasticism.

            ) he’s the one saying the distinction is just a logical distinction. Your arguments with him no me. You will need to sort your own theology amongst yourselves. Hope you 2 have fun, let me know the conclusion.
            >This runs into multiple problems
            Do you seriously not think angels are in the created order?
            >does this mean there was a prior incarnation?
            No
            >Dude Christ take full or partial angelic nature?
            No clue, I’m not experianced in angelic nature, but angelic nature is created.
            >What would such a thing mean for the incarnation?
            Nothing.
            >Etc.
            Etc what? No of your questions so far have been difficult to answer.
            >Further, some interpret it as the word for angel meaning messenger.
            Okay but angels are still in the created order and the manifested form God
            Assumed was in the created order.
            >Even so, it's easier to think he energetically manifested as an angel.
            So he created an Angel body out of energy (which is in the created order) rather than matter (which is also in the created order).
            >Energy manifests differently in regards to different people
            Yes but if you are manifesting as different forms the manifestations are STILL in the created order.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Okay but angels are still in the created order and the manifested form God
            Angels are their own beings with their own personalities and minds, not just some lifeless or mindless entities to manifest within.
            Also, since the Word can just mean messenger in those passages reffering to the Angel of the Lord, we don't know exactly how he looked like.

            https://i.imgur.com/V2KNLXD.jpeg

            >but so that the one nature was blended with the other.
            The blending or mixing of the natures, that sounds very Monophysite.
            >If so, are they even manifestations if you don't interact with God directly
            They are interacting with God, what you define as “directly” will need to be clarified. The Cow that God spoken through was interacting with God. God manifested as the burning bush, the bush wasn’t uncreated.
            >This is another point I have with your arguments. Why should I take them if your position is contradictory in that you are catholic but you just see Nicea 2 as optional?
            Nicea 2 is the HARDEST THING I struggle with as a catholic and I don’t in any way hide it from this board, as you have clearly shown and other can testify. I don’t consider that a contradiction as although I own a single icon I do take issue and have voiced both on this board, and to my priest, that MANDATING of Icons or EED as something required as part of church soteriology, as simply wrong.
            Where is the contradiction?
            >Because the human and divine nature indwell one another in St Pope Leo's christology, where the two's properties work in close connection.
            Okay so Christs humanity is still created….. and so is the light.
            >Further, if the energy is created why did it hurt them?
            If I shine a torch directly in your eyes does it hurt?
            >Why did St Leo said it was the unnaproachable and ineffable?
            ARGH, PLEASE STOP “of the Deity ITSELF which is reserved to eternal life for the pure in heart, they were IN NO MANNER ABLE to gaze on and behold WHILE STILL CLOTHED IN MORTAL FLESH.”
            They didn’t die when they saw the light because they weren’t looking at uncreated divinity. He brightened “that form of the body which is common to the rest of men”.
            >the logic is that they saw the uncreated God
            Then they would be dead.
            Sauce: The Bible.

            >The blending or mixing of the natures, that sounds very Monophysite.
            Indwelling isn't mixing. I can take two circus rings, make them be in each other, but not mix. An example for Christ by St John Damascus would be a sword heated in fire. The properties of fire, like warmth, indwell in the properties of the blade, like sharpness, but they don't mix.
            Also, Monophysitism is the idea of him only having a divine nature and not a real/full human nature, so you accidentally Miaphysites.
            >They are interacting with God, what you define as “directly” will need to be clarified.
            I said it, God's back is akin to his energies, with the cappadocians saying
            >God manifested as the burning bush, the bush wasn’t uncreated.
            He was the Fire.
            >If I shine a torch directly in your eyes does it hurt?
            Then why is Christ shining a sign of him being God? Moses did too and the light was the result of his direct interactions with God, who saw his back I.e. uncreated light. This shows a precedence that for it, hurting but not killing. Even so, Christ didn't mean to hurt them, so he made sure it wouldn't.
            >ARGH, PLEASE STOP “of the Deity ITSELF which is reserved to eternal life for the pure in heart, they were IN...
            That's more of an explanation of why it was painful for the split second they did see.
            >Nicea 2 is the HARDEST THING I struggle with as a catholic and I don’t in any way hide it from this board, as you have clearly shown and other can testify.
            This is much clearer, but the problem it still makes your position questionable when you willingly start arguments or debates.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *I said it, God's back is akin to his energy, with the cappadocians saying they are essentially reflections of God.
            Think I'm done with this.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See you in the next thread anon.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      shut up Black person

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >all this pilpul
      i think y'all have lost the plot entirely. it seems like some of you 'trad' christians pilpul in all this scholasticism as an exercise in piety which is vanity and exactly the type of shit that jesus spoke against with the pharisees. there's also a whole book called ecclesiastes too. perhaps y'all should read it sometime. you know, actually read the bible on your own and not kvetch over what is essentially schismatic and medieval thought generated by people with too much time on their hands with political motivations

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because I believe in the Pope

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because while I appreciate many aspects of Greek theology I am a Latin at heart. I have concerns with the Palamite essence-energy distinction, fully affirm the filioque as absolutely essential for a proper understanding of the Trinity, and believe that satisfaction/forensic theories of atonement are just as valid if not more valid than the complementary recapitulatory theories and have a very solid basis in both scripture and the early Church. I also affirm the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. The west is my home, but I still love my fellow Orthobros despite my disagreements with them theologically.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      so why is the filioque necessary?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Different anon jumping in,
        >why is the filioque necessary?
        I can’t say with 100% certainty it is necessary for salvation.
        However at the very least it’s rooted in scripture;

        The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ (the Son)
        >And because you Gentiles have become his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, and now you can call God your dear Father
        (Galatians 4:6)
        >What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.
        (Philippians 1:18-20)

        Holy Spirit proceeding through the son
        >And now I will send the Holy Spirit, just as my Father promised. But stay here in the city until the Holy Spirit comes and fills you with power from heaven
        (Luke 24:49)
        >Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit”
        (John 20:22)
        >Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb (Revelation 22:1)
        >On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:37-39)

        Also I think it’s weird that they are so adamant that it’s heretical while also being ambivalent about gnostic shit like the toll houses.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isnt that sacrilige or something?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Isnt that sacrilige or something?

      The suit? I can't see it as anything but.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’m not Greek or Slavic, they are racists

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why ?

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    my general thoughts, moron protestantism in the states made atheism go viral, unfortunately the brain dead morons in america killed christianity by taking every single word in the bible literally and losing every single debate about it thereby demystifying christianity as a whole.

    on eastern orthodoxy, there's a schism between the russians their associates and everyone else. for Russia the church is influence and money nothing more, 2% - 8% of russians actually attend church services at all. They're the biggest church because they have the biggest government and most money behind them. Russians don't care about christianity unless it enables their superiority complex, that's the type of "based orthodox christianity" thats unfortunately being propagandised to the west.

    Christianity lives in communities, lots of those communities are dying, pretending to be orthodox or catholic by yourself is not gonna do anything about it

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does Mr. Lobster never get fitting suits? They are usually a size or two too tight .

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    not christian
    raised catholic
    not interested in shitty russian nationalism
    etc

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Salvation is by faith alone

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think it's true that a man walked on water 2000 years ago

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because I'm not

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the eastern orthodox, like most christians, believe in eternal generation of the son, a completely heretical idea.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I believe the bible

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Tradlarping will never get you laid

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Repent fornicator

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not a rootless dork who buys into popular current things.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Juden Peterstein

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because my ethnicity is Scottish. Makes no sense.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Orthodox can't agree on salvation or original sin. Some Orthodox say that you need to be Orthodox to go to heaven. Others believe in purgatorial universalism. Some Orthodox say there is no original sin except for death. Others disagree in this vague way. They also disagree on who has good sacraments and who doesn't.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      whatever the answer is isnt important, because it pretains to the next world
      what matters is what actions we take in this world

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wasn't raised as Eastern Orthodox. Unless you can prove it's the only way to follow the Bible then I don't see a reason to say goodbye to everyone I know and join an Eastern Orthodox church.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i don't have brain damage (yet)

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)#Christian_mysticism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophiology#Controversy_within_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imiaslavie

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can anyone start a Unitarian vs Trinitarian thread

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >that jacket
    lmfao how do people still take this clown seriously?

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't worship israelites

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Whoever believes is the true church

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    guy sometimes makes weird claims

    ?t=140

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because I'm an ACNA Anglican.
    While I generally respect the Eastern Orthodox and view them as apostolic and part of the universal, Catholic Church, there are some issues I disagree on

    One of them is iconography.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How can you pray to the dead if those who believe in Christ will live per John 3:16?

      How many Christians would be praying to dead nonbelievers?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why do you make the commandments of God of none effect?
        If believers are told
        >thou shalt do no necromancy
        Is this just a null command?
        If God says
        >thou shalt not cut thyself for the dead
        Do you then, like a sophist day
        >”ah, our brother is alive in Heaven, therefore let me know cut myself in mourning”
        ?
        You know the meaning of words but you love the feeling of sin. It feels so lovely and beautiful.
        Do you know* why false religion is likened to a prostitute? Because it’s beautiful. It’s appealing. But the most beautiful prostitute is still a prostitute.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Now* not know

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's not necromancy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you make the commandments of God of none effect?
      If believers are told
      >thou shalt do no necromancy
      Is this just a null command?
      If God says
      >thou shalt not cut thyself for the dead
      Do you then, like a sophist day
      >”ah, our brother is alive in Heaven, therefore let me know cut myself in mourning”
      ?
      You know the meaning of words but you love the feeling of sin. It feels so lovely and beautiful.
      Do you know* why false religion is likened to a prostitute? Because it’s beautiful. It’s appealing. But the most beautiful prostitute is still a prostitute.

      >posts interesting quotes
      >waiting to see how you develop this argument
      >someone makes a basic counterpoint
      >start screeching about false religion and muh prostitute of babylon

      It’s all so tiresome.

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    oh my fricking god, why the frick is he dressed up like a tele-evangelist con man?

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    as long as you sound like a native english speaker, know how to debate people without acknowledging their point in any meaningful way and can write english without it sounding like a dog puked it on the page you can become just like jordan peterson, you can even skip his professor phase that's not where the money is at you just need to somehow be controversial or interesting enough to blow up on the internet and become viral after that you can lean into the fatherless generations need for a positive role model and sell self help books to them while telling them to cut lawn and clean up their rooms and how you could afford a house back in the day for a penny and a toothbrush working at a gas station

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The two big ones would be idolatry, and anathematising billions of faithful Christians over matters not necessary for salvation.

    To be an EO one has to believe that a Christ-loving, saintly Christian is going to hell just because they celebrate Easter on a different date.

    >captcha: sspx

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What a fricking hack

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's the issue? "Did Jesus materially return from death? Meaning he was a real, alive historical figure, which returned from death."

      "What do you mean by that?!"

      C'mon, Jordan. If this is a recurring theme, then how are you not a grifter?

      Like, for frick's sake! Sure, the bible may have meant it allegorically, but that's not what we asked!

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    pmub

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I believe in God, not communism.

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because I don't believe that made up bullshit. And neither do you. And unlike in the case of fedoras, I have good reason.

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not a schismatic nor Slavic

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Antidepressants numb the Holy Spirit. I don't feel like converting.

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    honestly how the frick are 'denominations' even a thing? im pretty secular and have read the bible twice and it makes my believe that and dogmatic adherent to any 'denomination' based of some 'interpretation' is fricking moronic.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Though I'm a denominational Christian I feel somewhat similarly and it's one major reason why I'm a classical Protestant: the doctrine of the invisible church (i.e. the Church is not reducible to any visible denomination or ecclesiastical hierarchy on Earth) appears much more reasonable to me in light of Scripture than RCs and EOs (as I said above one of the two reasons I reject EO, along with idolatry) declaring every faithful Christian who doesn't agree with them on some obscure and unresolvable theological point to be normatively cut off from the body of Christ. Fortunately not even RCs and EOs genuinely believe that to be true anymore, outside a handful of trad fanatics.
      I believe my denomination and confession to be true on every point (otherwise I would not be a member of it), but at the same time I am willing to accept that there is a likelihood it is wrong on matters not necessary for salvation, and that faithful Christians can in this way share in the truth across multiple orthodox perspectives, without that being in contradiction to my historic tradition.

  49. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Orthodox oppose the immaculate conception because they believe it's elevating Mary too much but none have actually explained how she could go her life without sinning while being born with original sin or evil desires. If she was the same as everyone else, how could she go without sinning? It would be impossible. John the Baptist was also born without original sin. That's how he didn't sin.

  50. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God not real, though

  51. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because those are ethnoreligions and I don't belong to any of those ethnicities.

  52. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ITT
    >OrthoChads dunking on Protestants and Franco-Latin Papist.
    At the end of the day, you're either an Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant. Protestants now encompass Atheism, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhism, Pagans, etc.,.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Say, how come Orthochads only get to rule over shithole ultra-corrupt countries in Eastern Europe?

  53. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >This, again, just seems like improper or imprecise words.
    No don’t say it to me, say it to him, you two need to figure if the distinction is real or not.
    >They are. I never denied that.
    That okay, I didn’t say you did, I was really confused by your question tho.
    >How so? Angels, unlike God, aren't pure spirit, along with them on multiple instances clearly being shown as physical.
    Okay…… God can manifest physical matter, cause hes…. Ya know, God.
    >But if Christ took angelic nature, does he still have it or not?
    What did I just say, also he could manifest as an Angel without having to take on angelic nature. I’ll show how you are inconsistent in just a second.

    >Angels are their own beings with their own personalities and minds, not just some lifeless or mindless entities to manifest within.
    I never said they weren’t, but God can manifest in the form of an Angel without being obligated to create a seperate personality or mind for said manifestion. This tangent is illogical.

    >Indwelling isn't mixing.
    Anon, I……. please re-read the passage you posted that I actually responded to.
    Everything that follows that is built on you not addressing what I actually said.
    >Also, Monophysitism is the idea of him only having a divine nature and not a real/full human nature
    From…….. come on you know this one,
    I know you know it…….. THE MIXING OF THE NATURE, AYYYYY YOU GOT IT!
    >so you accidentally Miaphysites.
    That’s not English.
    >I said it, God's back is akin to his energies
    Okay that’s not a clarification what you mean, that’s just an analogy.
    > He was the Fire.
    So fire is also now uncreated.
    Am I being tested?

  54. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    b
    u
    m
    p

  55. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  56. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anything that Jordan Peterson is associated with I stay away from

  57. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've heard some very strange things about them.

  58. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Catholicism exicuted many people for translating the bible into english because they were using the bible to make money. And for that i will never trust them. They worship graven images, pray to saints and call their pastors father. All things which are against God. The catholic church was the roman government, they destroyed the original church of the Nazerenes and replaced it with the catholic church in order to corrupt the church with pagan idol worship. And from the catholic church came the orthodox church which is nothing more than a democratic version of catholicism.

  59. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

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