[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / choroy / dempart / doomer / fast / jenny / magali / vg ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: 30dae22b1d9be17⋯.jpg (243.9 KB, 1187x1434, 1187:1434, Pio.jpg)

5d70c1  No.788731

Both the East and West have a history of Saints with prodigious miracles, incorruptibles, etc. How can this be possible, when the very doctrine of Grace differs in the Eastern and Western Churches? How can this be possible, when only there is only One Church that is truly Catholic and Apostolic? How does that relate with Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus? Maybe I'm just being too legalistic, I know that God looks at your heart first and foremost (1 Samuel 16:7), but this is very troubling, and in some ways reminds me of Protestant theology. (In other words, God will still give Grace to those in Churches that are outside of the True Church.) I'd like to have discussion on this matter.

63ec39  No.788738


They’re not saints and their miracles aren’t from God

63ec39  No.788744


imagine being such a heretic that you think sainthood is possible outside of the body of christ

ec072e  No.788754


Utter stupidity. Judge by the fruits and it's damn obvious that there have been saints in both the Catholic Church and in the Orthodox Church despite the schism. There is no way so many miracles and good works—and such profound ones—could come from Satan.

4672a5  No.788755

Do the Eastern Orthodox even believe in no salvation outside the Church? I've been reading quite a bit of the Church Fathers lately and, while my knowledge of patristics is still very limited, it seems like only the western Fathers ever said anything along the lines of that. Some of the eastern Fathers, such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory the Theologian, even appear to say things in contradiction to it.

eadf96  No.788756

If I give my honest thought it will cause a shitshow like everytime I do, and I risk getting banned anyway.

I will solely say that if someone does not believe in Christ (the true Christ, the One Who is really Triune and really Incarnate), they can receive no sanctifying grace. The "miracles" of such people may be of God, but if they do not lead anyone to the Church then either the person conveying this "miracle" has messed up, or, more likely, such "miracles" come from the devil with the intention to sow confusion and make unclear where the Church lies.

See Acts 19:11-17:

>Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them. Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” Also there were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, who did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?” Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. This became known both to all Jews and Greeks dwelling in Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

But if someone is dogmatically correct about Who Jesus is, I think that such miracles are possible, and even salvation (although ideally one should enter communion with the canonical bishops so that they can directly receive the sacraments). See Mark 9:38-41:

>“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.


The Western Fathers are Orthodox too.

No one, East or West, denies that there is no salvation outside the Church. The issue is to define where the boundaries of the Church are.

669359  No.788770


>Father Barnabas introduced me to another guest, a Bishop Alexis van der Mensbrugghe. He was an ex-monk of Amay (now Chevetogne) who converted to Orthodoxy and later became an Orthodox bishop and a lecturer in Church History at Oxford University. He had an interesting theory.

>He told me that one surprising fact about Orthodox and Catholic history seems to corroborate Pope John XXIII's dictum that our divisions do not extend to heaven. He said it is a surprising thing that, in spite of the great differences between East and West, there have been movements down the ages which correspond to one another across the divide, even when there is no contact between them and no evidence that one is copying the other. He gave two instances, but said there were others. The first was the tendency to express spirituality in long and sumptuous liturgies, that the Byzantine liturgy reached its maturity during the time of Cluny which also went in for the same but without copying Byzantium. The other instance is the Hesychast movement that was exactly contemporaneous with the Rhineland and English mystics. Of course they were different in theology, vocabulary and style, belonging as they did to two different religious cultures; but they were expressions of the same faith and had the same inspiration.

I've seen similar happenings, too.


Prophecies that speak of the same things, but mirrored.

Exiled russian theologians just so happening to intersect with the Ressourcement movement(itself something born out of multiple catholic theologians independently having similar theological ideas) that was appearing in the same cities they were activating in, which would flourish, and critically influence Vatican II for the better.

In my opinion, i don't think Christ abandoned either of the ancient Churches, and all these signs of grace and prophecy all seems to point to some massive endgame He is planning, that will be more glorious than we can imagine.

e7199e  No.788776


Both cannot be right, one will give sway to the other. My bet is on the Church with Cephas.

bdc7d2  No.788781


My bet is on the Church that doesn’t hold divine simplicity a holdover from neoPlatonism.

e7199e  No.788785


oh, so you argue that God, the Father, has eyes, nose, and ears in His Personhood?

bdc7d2  No.788789

File: 8b02c40f421cbea⋯.jpeg (43.16 KB, 200x296, 25:37, BC9C8F4A-7D0B-43C7-84BE-0….jpeg)


>divine simplicity

>God is knowable

pick one

bdc7d2  No.788790


There cannot be a reunion when the fundamental understanding of God is different.

e7199e  No.788792


false dichotomy; a creature cannot know the Creator, or even conceive of Him (no, not even the Angels can!)

divine simplicity isn't about knowing the Creator, it's about defining how beyond our capability the Father is

0ada1b  No.788793


deleted the post, I can't believe I forgot about P*lamas and wrote all of that

bdc7d2  No.788798


God cannot be completely unknowable yet personal. That just makes God an intellectual construct like in neoPlatonism. Totally impersonal, which is the opposite of what the Gospel says. We cannot know His essence only His energies. But His energies are still part of him.

You can have a relationship with God without being able to comprehend his core essence. We know God through His energies He sends out into the world.

e7199e  No.788800


>God cannot be completely unknowable yet personal.

Of course He can, we know Him through Christ, the Son.

>That just makes God an intellectual construct like in neoPlatonism.

nooooo, this is why Christ is called Logos.

>Totally impersonal, which is the opposite of what the Gospel says

You should consider this whole Trinity thing must more.

e7199e  No.788801


*much more

bdc7d2  No.788808

File: 75766243dd54e6d⋯.png (56.99 KB, 1000x915, 200:183, 1AC8A524-DB3E-4312-9824-87….png)


>divine simplicity

>the father, son, and Holy Spirit are distinct divine persons (yet being one in the God)

pick one

If divine simplicity is true then the father is the same as the son, the son is the same as the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the same as the father.

Below chart shows the proper theological understanding of Trinity.

It is impossible to love that which you cannot know at all. We therefore love God through our knowledge of his energies.

e7199e  No.788810


quit giving me these idiotic false dichotomies, you're not interested in discussion here, you only seem to care about about having the last word

>If divine simplicity is true then the father is the same as the son

that's not what divine simplicity says, it is pointing how exactly the Father, in His Person-hood, as the Creator is, which is beyond all existence.

I have no idea how you manage to present this silly straw-man argument, if you're this mistaken about the term then you should really research it more before trying to attack it.

63ec39  No.788812


They don’t even have the same beliefs these churches have totally different views on the nature of the Godhead. To say people can be saved in both churches is ridiculous, because both churches have devoted members? Are protestants also saved if they do “miracles”? Are copts saved? Muslims have had pious members that did good deeds, can you find salvation in allah instead of christ? This ecumenism makes no sense it’s the same tier as liberals who say “all religions lead to the same truth” albeit at a lesser extent.

ba8b3a  No.788813


I haven’t presented you with any false dichotomies. This has just been the debate for the last 1000 years. If God is personal that means there is some aspect of Him that we humans can know, that we can have a relationship with. His energies.

e7199e  No.788817


>If God is personal that means there is some aspect of Him that we humans can know

Jesus Christ.

67e22a  No.788823


So when God appeared on the Old Testament to Moses that was…?

0a6795  No.788825


You might find this book interesting:


e7199e  No.788828


God. We do not know what Moses saw, but Scripture says "it was God's back", because any direct exposure to God would be death. The patristics argue Moses saw a vision of Christ, or a Theophany (same with Adam and Eve).

If you portend that God is not unknowable, then what is the point of the Son, friend? Do you not know nobody can come to the Father except through the Son? If God, the Father, is knowable, than by your logic, Christ is superfluous.

0a6795  No.788839


Apologies for the intrusion on the debate here, but I don't think it's fair the way you're dismissing your opponent by saying he's just "trying to get the last word in", when there is obviously a theological debate here that does actually exist keeping the churches divided. Insisting that its illusury when even top level scholars disagree is a bit disingenuous.

What you're saying about The Father, is roughly what an Orthodox might say about the essence of God. The thing is that this position then requires The Son and The Holy Spirit to 'fill in the gaps' that the energies of God are meant to explain in Orthodoxy, and that leads to certain implications and explanations of things that the Orthodox disagree with. But to imply that the Orthodox are the ones splitting up the Trinity is a complete misrepresentation of the Orthodox position.

There is a reason the anon you're debating is highlighting the things he's highlighting, so maybe check out some other resources explaining the issue in a bit more detail before casting judgement on him:





e7199e  No.788841


>The thing is that this position then requires The Son and The Holy Spirit to 'fill in the gaps'

It doesn't "fill in the gaps", we say that these are qualities of the Son, and the Holy Spirit in their Personhood.

>energies of God are meant to explain in Orthodoxy

Which is taken care of by the fact that the Trinity is still preserved in the: 3 persons - One God formula.

>But to imply that the Orthodox are the ones splitting up the Trinity

I'm implying that -anon- is splitting up the Trinity by his arguments against the Catholic position, I'm not actually arguing against the Orthodox position if you care to re-read the line of posts.

My argument is apologetic.

>Jay Dyer


196305  No.788843


>that pic again

But its also in the bible where Jesus grants St Peter the responsibility to guide his first church, as a place for his followers to gather and learn.

The church doesn't really contradict the bible in any way.

161ac6  No.788845


The only way that or the Transfiguration makes sense is in that Moses or the apostles actually saw God's uncreated energies. Not his "direct" uncreated essence but his uncreated energies.

Christ is God so Christ's essence incommunicable just as God's essence is incommunicable. The Orthodox position on the Trinity is that it is incommunicable with us in essence but it's energies can dwell within us. Christ's energies are communicable to us.



Let's stick to arguments here.

e7199e  No.788846


>The only way that or the Transfiguration makes sense is in that Moses or the apostles actually saw God's uncreated energies

What exactly is there about the Transfiguration that needs to "make sense"? The three Apostles' saw Christ in another form, in the middle of the Prophets, possibly in their heavenly spiritual form.

This entire argument is just completely alien to me, and to the rest of the West, what is there about the Transfiguration that needs explanation?

>so Christ's essence incommunicable

We're speaking different languages here, this is what happens when you try to shove a foreign theology onto another Christian.

>Let's stick to arguments here.

Sure, Jay Dyer is untrustworthy because he has gone through many religious conversions (atheist -> calvinist -> catholic -> orthodox) in addition to selling "the esoteric satanic messages of Nickelodeons' Good Burger".

I wouldn't trust the guy as a source for Theology, and it's hypocritical how he castigates Catholic theology for arguing through Greek Philosophy when he himself seems to go through religion like pairs of pants.

0a6795  No.788847


>It doesn't "fill in the gaps", we say that these are qualities of the Son, and the Holy Spirit in their Personhood.

Why do you think I put it in quotes? The point is that this is the Orthodox perspective on that particular issue. The 'gaps' are there for both; Catholics fill them with the rest of the Trinity, the Orthodox have a stricter interpretation of the roles each of the persons in the Trinity play, and they can do that because they 'fill-the-gaps' with the energies of God. You intentionally missing the point here suggests you're not interested in debating in good faith.

>Which is taken care of by the fact that the Trinity is still preserved in the: 3 persons - One God formula.

depending either on divine simplicity or the E/E distinction, which is what the entire debate is literally about. Do you think the Orthodox disagree with 3 persons, 1 God? because it seems like you've implied that multiple times now.

>I'm not actually arguing against the Orthodox position

The anon was obviously trying to communicate the Orthodox position though, surely you recognized that. I don't see the need to sneakily strawman the entire East/West theological divide in a thread about how the two overlap, just because some anon might've been hasty in articulating the theological issues at play.

>Jay Dyer

Not many people have that man's level of autism to actually research and articulate these theological issues to the masses in English. Most of what he does is just cite and summarize the sayings of saints and church fathers that can be easily referenced anyway, but would take much longer to read than just watching a few youtube videos. If you have a problem with the works of saints and church fathers however, then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't like getting into this specific debate because it's super technical and requires a lot of niche prerequisite knowledge from everybody, but it's disingenuous when people misrepresent the debate entirely.

0a6795  No.788851


>Jay Dyer is untrustworthy because he has gone through many religious conversions

You realize that's actually a strong argument in favor of him knowing what he's talking about, right? it's not like he changes religions every week. He literally spent a decade devoutly studying each Catholicism and Orthodoxy. That's more than can be said for most practicing Catholics and Orthodox that barely ever glance at the source material of their faith. Contrary to popular belief, choosing your particular brand of religion isn't always based purely on random subjective opinions that can be changed on a whim. Studying the intricacies of Christian doctrine and church history to try and understand the most reliable set of beliefs is barely something that can be done in a lifetime, nevermind a couple years like you seem to be implying you to want people to do.

Also, I don't think Jay ever claimed to be an atheist at any point in time. But if you have a citation to the contrary, feel free to bring it up.

161ac6  No.788853



The dude has been Orthodox for about ten years lolololol.

Besides most people on this board have been through some kind of conversion.

e7199e  No.788865


>The point is that this is the Orthodox perspective on that particular issue

The point from the West, is that isn't an issue, nor did anyone ever think it was an issue. It's like a Mormon butting into a Thomistic conference with some stuff from their Gospel, all you'd get is some confused stares.

Fact of the matter is, for all the Orthodox whining about Scholastic theology, Palamist theology is its own beast with its own peculiarities that nobody in the West has ever really considered. That the Orthodox uses it to justify calling Catholics heretics is their own fault.

>You intentionally missing the point here suggests you're not interested in debating in good faith.

There's no "point" to miss here, the argument was an Orthodox trying to poke holes into Catholic theology using Orthodox theological auspices, and the contentions comes not from anything in the Catholic theology, but from the Orthodox. Nobody in the West has treated Palamist theology seriously, and try as I might, I can't even find post-schism Saints or theologians even talk about it.

>Do you think the Orthodox disagree with 3 persons, 1 God?

Not at all, but it's obvious there has been a few hundreds years worth of theological innovation among the Orthodox, and all we can do is try to mash two theologies together.

All I keep hearing over and over is "uh excuse me, ackshully, you guys dont believe in the trinity because of energies", and nobody in the West even knows the argument!

This is the fruit Dyer lays at your feet, even more cause to contention among the apostolic Churches.

>Not many people have that man's level of autism to actually research and articulate these theological issues to the masses in English

That you seem to exclusively receive this theology through the cypher of Dyer alone is concerning, how about any other modern Orthodox theologian willing to debate about the East/West differences?

bdfe8c  No.788867


Catholicism doesnt deny orthodox can have grace and affirms they have a valid priesthood, it's more of a problem for orthodox who have to say they were demonic or in prelest

e7199e  No.788872


>You realize that's actually a strong argument in favor of him knowing what he's talking about, right?

Not at all. I don't respect a man who claimed to be Catholic and became a schismatic.

161ac6  No.788901


Dyer knows more core Roman Catholic theology than 99% of registered Catholics and that's a fact. Not an opinion but a fact. You yourself said no one in the West have heard of the issue.

>any other modern Orthodox theologian

Vladimir Lossky is a good one to explain this distinction. Or you could just go back to Palamas and his debate with Barlaam.

Orthodox ecumenist bishops are spreading the false teaching that we shouldn't be making converts to Orthodoxy and that is why there is not much dialogue. This goes against the lives of the saints who died to make converts to the faith.

>It's like a Mormon

>theological innovation

>even more to cause contention

>I don't respect

This is similar to someone screeching "ortholarp" or "larpodox". I try to approach these discussions with charity and a Christian attitude which is what I recommend you do as well. Sneering condescension will really get you nowhere in these discussions as it doesn't advance your point. Perhaps no one has approached Palamas seriously as Orthodoxy really has had little presence in the West until recently.

f79f1c  No.788914


>The point from the West, is that isn't an issue

That really isn't saying much, considering the fact that the RCC has effectively embraced every other religion under the sun as being valid, making it practically equivalent to Hindu doctrine now. If you guys actually cared about re-unification between the East and West, you wouldn't just flat out dismiss the concerns of the East by saying "it's all like totally cool man", and pretending like the principles of the East aren't actual barriers to unification. The East isn't going to overturn it's entire history just to join the West with all its questionable fruits.

>That the Orthodox uses it to justify calling Catholics heretics is their own fault.

And you guys using your Roman dogmatics to complain about the Orthodox being schismatics is your own fault as well (despite the fact that the bishop of Rome single-handedly chose to excommunicate all the other bishops during the schism). Saying "it's your own fault!" literally adds nothing to the conversation.

>there has been a few hundreds years worth of theological innovation among the Orthodox

Now now, don't be coy, there's been just as much (if not arguably more) "theological innovation" in the West as well. At least the Orthodox can root it's E/E distinction back to the occurrence of the term "energeia" in the actual NT which implies such a distinction, and was recognized by St John of Damascus way before St. Palamas came around. The west on the other hand, chose to put most of its eggs in the Augustine/Aquinas basket, nevermind the craziness that was Vatican II or the notorious Papal Infallibility council:


>That you seem to exclusively receive this theology through the cypher of Dyer alone is concerning

Did you miss the whole part about him basically just regurgitating stuff the saints, councils, and church fathers said? How is that "Dyer alone"? I've read a lot of the source material he cites, and it basically just restates the same stuff he says, just more eloquently. 'Aristotle East and West' is particularly good in that regard, but of course you're probably not interested in learning about opposing viewpoints anyway.

>how about any other modern Orthodox theologian willing to debate about the East/West differences?

Literally every Orthodox priest/monk/theologian talks about the East/West differences. The differences are part of most (if not all) the Orthodox Catechisms out there ffs. Just look here:



If you're referring specifically to the Energy/Essence distinction however, that's not talked about as much because it's a niche topic, and it's incompatibility with the West usually only comes up in the context of the Filioque anyway. Plus, there are several other issues with Western doctrine that are more relevant for perspective converts and followers than the E/E distinction, thus putting the whole issue in the back seat in most materials about Orthodoxy.


And I could say I don't respect heretics that officially enshrined an office for false prophets under the guise of succeeding St. Peter. See how that works? What are you even doing in a thread about East/West unification if your only goal just is to continue flinging poo at the other side?

98f85c  No.788946

Are you guys still derailing into Filioque debates?

161ef8  No.788980



The whole point of us humans having minds is we can seek the truth, because we are to seek God, and God is the truth. If God is not knowable, you are really saying that in the final equation we were not meant to seek God. That this is incorrect is obvious from a spiritual point of view.

This is a problem for you too ordodox, because in reality you really are holding the same position, just a weaker version. "We can't know God but we can know his energies". Now unless i'm mistaken and "energies" are actually a trivial distinction, you too have the problem of our minds not really made to seek God, but only his energies. And i'm no master of the essence energy distinction, honestly I don't understand it at all, but I do know that it must be possible to know God, else everything becomes absurd.

e8a40f  No.789005


>22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.

>23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

>24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

>25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

>26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

>27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

>28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

>29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

>30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

>31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Anon, I…

af5dcf  No.789029


Here is a metaphor which might help. Say I kiss my hypothetical wife. She may know nothing of my essences. I am just communicating energies to her there, but we are still capable of having a relationship. Now that’s a little different because it’s about two humans. We are capable of having a relationship with God though through his energies. That’s the Orthodox position anyways.

c8fff2  No.789040

Jesus clearly says you can even do miracles in his name but still go to Hell. As for the Catholic doctrine, it is clear schismatics go to hell, unless they are joined to the Catholic church before their death.

39f0b1  No.789076

The same way material heretics like st Paul vi, st JP 2 became saints: ignorance and final repentance

8b1fb1  No.789120

File: b836b7abd7e3e13⋯.png (240.41 KB, 346x490, 173:245, 0020a409d32e3651bf3489f6c9….png)


Good job BTFOing that strawman, you really showed me

b00f88  No.789149


Aquinas btfos Turks for no reason.

161ef8  No.789150



>God in essence transcends all logical categories we try to put Him in.

This is precisely what I don't want to believe unless I absolutely have to, it is tantamount to saying God is brute fact (like the way the atheists say the world is brute fact), and only communicates through a part of himself that is fashioned in order exposed so we can see, but himself is indescribable by order. That there is a part of God outside of reason, and he has to dip into reason so that he can talk with us.

As in some parts of God are illogical and unordered. God is logos, God is word, God is order, and yet there is an unordered, unworded, unlogos part of God? I will admit, such a thing is not impossible - one could even imagine these parts merely being written in another language, though one would question why God would hide himself behind a second like that, or that such a thing simply ends up being necessary in order to exist - but I refuse to believe it (unless I have to). God cannot be disordered or illogical.

161ef8  No.789153


>such a thing is not impossible

Actually I take that back - it is impossible. You cannot with your reason make an unerred connection with something unreasonable. if there is in principal not even a single possible way to apprehend by reason something without error, then it is by definition impossible.

I mean I could say something like - God made the world so it is ordered, but he didn't make himself, so he himself is not ordered and exists in part outside of order, which is plausible sounding - but you cannot logically arrive to that conclusion no matter how it sounds. The moment you exit logic, you lose, that's how logic works.

792db8  No.789157

File: 7d35db261232a53⋯.jpg (27.2 KB, 320x240, 4:3, BibleKJV.jpg)


We in our imperfection fail to grasp the perfect order.

bf646f  No.789161


>As in some parts of God are illogical and unordered

That's not what it implies. What the unknowable Essence suggests, is closer to the idea of incompleteness in mathematics:


In other words, our inability to fully comprehend God is a result of the limited human faculties at our disposal, the same way we can't legitimately visualize infinity or 4-dimensional space, not some illogical property of God, or God intentionally hiding himself.

450b0f  No.789164


Logic is not a foundation. It is a tool. It requires fundamental presuppositions.

I'm not saying God's existence is illogical, you can absolutely support God's existence with logic. God's essence though exists outside of time and space, how could beings such as we then see God's essence? Don't make logic an idol.

Thats why we contact His energies not His essence.

161ef8  No.789204


>"Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove."

Funny that he said a circle, I have dealt with very, very similar subjects in one of my stranger attempts to prove God's existence, where nothing can be considered true without an observer to think it true - as no mind can in principal logically arrive at such a conclusion. To think of something as being true outside of observation, you would have to use your mind to try to imagine something as being true without an observer, when your mind is itself an observer. It is impossible, you cannot mentally observe something that is not mentally observed. Therefor you cannot in principal conceive of something existing without an observer as being rational - because there is not even a single way to rationally reach that conclusion, so it is what is known as "impossible" - for there is no possible way to logically make that connection. Nothing impossible exists in this world, so there can be no non observed things that exist, as unobserved things are irrational objects. Therefore seeing that our rational minds did not always exist during times when there were things that clearly did exist, and true propositions were to be had when we were not around to observe them, there must be a prime observer mind who has always observed everything to rationally observe that things exist, necessarily, in order for them locally speaking to have existed, and this mind is what we call God. I even went so far as to think that God observes his own existence, as all minds observe that they exist - I think therefor I am. I recognized that even God's perspective must be observed by a greater circle/perspective that contains it, so I tried to say that it precisely contains/observes itself, and just simply does exist.

Seemingly the only way out would be to say that logic and truth is a mind independent affair, however this is not possible, for you would have to imagine logic existing outside of a mind, but that is impossible to do, because you must use your mind to imagine it being outside of a mind, which is the same self contradiction. Thank you for that, I liked that thought experiment.

161ef8  No.789207


<anyways back to your argument

"A circle must be explained by a larger circle" doesn't work as it leads to an infinite regress. If a circle must be explained by a larger circle that contains it, then this will lead to an infinite number of circles that contain circles, with no stable foundation, or "prime circle" that contains all others. An actual infinite number of circles is impossible - and infinitely passing the explanation on to a larger circle doesn't ever create a system that coherently works. You need a circle that doesn't need to be explained by a larger circle - and everyone knows this "circle" is God.

We already believe God to be a "first circle" that contains all others, so what you are saying is that there is the circle that we can rationally understand, and within this circle God is able to be understood, but there are other parts of God (and reason itself) that is contained by a bigger, non-rationally legible circle that stands as the foundation - the uncircled first circle. While this is plausible sounding, I don't think God needs energies that is explained by a mysterious essence. The only absolute and true mystery that seems necessary, is that for some reason logic exists and it's binding. Once you've got the word, you've got God as God necessarily according to logic must exist - so once you've got logic, it is no mystery why there was never nothing in the world, and while there are still mysteries relative to humans, outside of "where did logic come from?" there are no absolute mysteries left.

In other words, only reason seemingly needs to be an absolute mystery - and I suppose if God's essence is thought of as logos/reason itself (although i'm not certain that that makes any sense), then you're very close to being right about the e/e distinction. I can't disagree that the existence of the essence of logic itself is likely only there by brute fact and not by its own logic, and so why such an essence exists would be unknowable. However the essence though unknowable where it came from wouldn't necessarily be disordered or unknowable itself - it's unknowability would just be a part of it's nature as an uncreated thing exclusively pertaining to the question of where it came from. That this uncreated thing is itself unknowable (and not ordered under logos) is by no means necessarily implied by this.

Maybe this is due to some sort of difference in the believed role of the father and the son. The son is logos, who is consubstantial with the father. Therefor the father is of the same substance of words. How can these words be irrational? I can understand us not being smart enough to understand them, but for them to be truly illegible? Sounds heathenous if you ask me.

450b0f  No.789210


Theres a much simpler thing to consider. How can we comprehend an eternal essence which transcends time and space? How could we know that personally? You're making this into quantum physics when it's really a lot more basic than that.

161ef8  No.789214


it is utter chicken feed to imagine a mind that exists outside time and space - because minds can easily exist outside of time and space. First of all what is a mind? Well a mind is something that intends, for example you can intend to stick your arm out, and that in some way ultimately is caused by your mind. You can stick your hand on a stove and your body will automatically recoil whether you intended it or not, this is not due to your mind, but is your bodies natural reaction.

Imagine this, your mind is hooked up to a virtual world where there was nothing in it. Just black. Even though there is nothing in that virtual world, your mind could still intend things, and is capable of thought.

What about time? Well time is just change, and it's entirely possible to imagine a mind that does not change, and is just there frozen like that forever. Congratulations, you have imagined a mind existing outside of spacetime, and proven that it is entirely possible that the mind is non-physical.

Thinkin about it that's probably what hell is like actually. Black as there is no space of which to see, painful like there is a feeling of fire all over, horrifying, as there is the visions of terrifying demons in this darkness to haunt you, and the worm of regret in your mind that never dies - and it all never, ever changes.

63ec39  No.789215

82e32f  No.789244

File: 345c6b851e52acb⋯.jpg (149.72 KB, 512x510, 256:255, All Saints.jpg)


Wow, look at this trashfire of a thread. To actually answer OP's question:

There have been numerous Saints that have been venerated and shared post-Schism by the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. Some examples include:

>Alexei Trupp, servant of St. Czar Nicholas II and his Sainted Family, who despite being a Roman Catholic at the time of his death was granted the title of Martyrdom by the ROCOR alongside the Royal Family and 3 other Servants, in 1981

>Saint Stephen of Hungary, a post-Schism Catholic Saint, was canonized by the Greek Orthodox Church in 2000

>Saint Sergius of Radonezh, a post-Schism Orthodox Saint, was canonized by the Roman Catholic Church in 1452

>All 1.5 Million Christian victims of the Armenian Genocide were canonized by the Armenian Apostolic Church, and that includes Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Martyrs as well

>The Roman Catholic Church declared the 1900s Eastern Orthodox Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion as Catholic Martyrs as well

>Saint King Kaleb of Axum, despite being a post-Chalcedon Schism Ethiopian Saint, is venerated in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches as well

>Saint Isaac the Syrian, despite being from the Assyrian Church of the East long after their Schism from the rest of Christendom, is venerated in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches

And on and on it goes. Not to mention Eastern Catholics are allowed to venerate the Orthodox Saints of their Sister Church. You will find icons of St. Seraphim of Sarov alongside St. Francis of Assisi in a Russian Catholic Church, for example. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of Western Orthodox doing this with post-Schism Roman Catholic Saints, though I do have a book by Helene Iswolsky titled "Light Before Dusk" where she talks about how many Orthodox in France during her lifetime venerated St. Theresa of Lisieux and that she was an extremely popular Saint in Russia while she was still living.

bb1703  No.789275


>St. Theresa of Lisieux

Her understanding of God and his grace always seemed pretty eastern to me

e7199e  No.789282


I think the orthodox just goofed into the correct, catholic understanding


4abbbb  No.789780


I'd like to add something to your post, anon. Eastern Catholics also can venerate Saint Isaac the Syrian, especially in the Maronite Church, as he was a Syriac, close to us.

161ac6  No.789789


What denomination are you?

I think you’re trying to reduce God to a worldly entity.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / choroy / dempart / doomer / fast / jenny / magali / vg ]