Notices by Plotinus Enjoyer (plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st), page 2
-
Embed this notice
@nigvids @BowsacNoodle @KingOfWhiteAmerica @Escoffier @mackya And he’s an atheist and a materialist so automatically retarded
-
Embed this notice
@nigvids @BowsacNoodle @KingOfWhiteAmerica @Escoffier @mackya >the boomer me me me attitude but for religion
lmao
-
Embed this notice
@nigvids @BowsacNoodle @KingOfWhiteAmerica @Escoffier @mackya Which of course is a tragedy, and if I’m being honest I can’t give you a straight answer as to why.
What I do know is that by strict logical demonstration, there must be an absolute, unchangeable and simple (and therefore immaterial) Being that is also entirely good in itself. Since all things can only exist as long as this Being exerts its power, it follows that this Being governs all affairs.
What I can also tell you is that such a something would at least be extremely difficult, if not almost impossible, to comprehend. So this Being’s ways would also be difficult to comprehend.
And before you object, may I remind you that this is basically the deepest level of reality we are talking about. If you are expecting something like this to be easy to understand then boy do I have news for you.
-
Embed this notice
@BowsacNoodle @nigvids @KingOfWhiteAmerica @Escoffier @mackya Saying “I read Revilo Oliver” to me has about as much weight as an atheist citing Hume when smugly making his non-arguments against religion or when Carl Benjamin asks if one has read Locke
-
Embed this notice
@BowsacNoodle @Hoss @lina @Aldo2 @AidanTTIerian @vic I think repentant pedophiles (very unlikely I’m aware, but I think at least conceivable) should be given a chance, but this one doesn’t seem like that type, he seems to think its a-ok to be a pedophile
-
Embed this notice
@sickburnbro @TrevorGoodchild @mk but but but scott ritter himself said his act was shameful but not criminal therefore its not criminal xd
-
Embed this notice
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @BowsacNoodle @Witch_Hunter_Siegfried @WhiteJihadJaws @grey @Thickasabrick Hot take: “gnosticism” shouldn’t really be conflated with “classical Hellenism”
-
Embed this notice
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @BowsacNoodle @Witch_Hunter_Siegfried @WhiteJihadJaws @grey @Thickasabrick I mean, just by looking at some accounts of gnosticism (I have Plotinus’ account in mind) and Manichaeism, this is much less about “reconciling differences” and much more about fuelling the ego of specific cult leaders
Gnosticism is alien to at least two of the ”great giants” of classical Hellenism, so to speak - Plato and Aristotle.
-
Embed this notice
@madonline @BowsacNoodle hahahahaha
-
Embed this notice
@BowsacNoodle @me It doesn’t look rad, it looks like an eyesore
-
Embed this notice
@BowsacNoodle @neofugue The two lungs bit is usually said in the context of ecumenism (AFAIK anyway) which I must say I don’t agree with
-
Embed this notice
@BowsacNoodle @neofugue Two lungs I’m wary of, but I think logic and reason plays an important role in any faith
This isn’t to invalidate any sort of mystical experience, but logic and reason IMHO is needed as a sort of “counter-balance” of sorts. Relying solely on experience (it is important to remember that I don’t think Orthodoxy does this, btw) is a recipe for disaster and invites the most extreme subjectivism.
-
Embed this notice
@neofugue Energies is merely talking about presence or manifestation of God’s essence. This already means this does not touch upon God “internally” (to use a metaphor) at all. The usage of the exemplar argument by even Jay Dyer of all people supports this. Claiming that this contradicts the fact that God is without differentiated parts is irrelevant because they’re both touching on two different points in the first place. And if anything, the fact that God ”internally” is entirely simple also tells us why God must be known through energies, or presence, or manifestation.
Also, Jay Dyer’s coherentism is ultimately wrong. It makes reason self-referential. So telling me “in this system this works” is not going to convince me. It basically means “accept any system as long as it internally coheres”. Saying that only Orthodoxy offers a fully coherent system is an entirely ad hoc sleight of hand to mask the fact that in principle, coherentism means any system can be chosen as long as it internally coheres.
-
Embed this notice
@neofugue Not sure where to post this, but I thought you should know this.
I’ve very recently purchased Seraphim Rose’s book on St Augustine. While it is true he is most known for his piety, the sources that Fr. Seraphim uses show that he is also an Orthodox theologian of high authority - in the Fifth Ecumenical Council he is considered a theologian of first rank, commanding the same respect as Gregory the Theologian. The sources that Fr. Seraphim used suggest that Augustine‘s “errors“ for the most part aren’t really errors, but exaggerations due to Augustine living in a specific time and space. People tend to forget that Augustine was at that time combatting the Pelagians.
And on the question of “absolute“ divine simplicity - another reason for thinking that ADS is no different from DS if Augustine is claimed to teach ADS is that what he said about God’s attributes in the sense that they are internal is a logical conclusion from DS. This means: “to the extent that God has any ’internal attributes’, they must be the same as His essence.” This is exactly what must be said if it is admitted that God is not made of differentiated parts. What has no differentiated parts must be self-same so everything within Him, if there is anything at all, must be the same as each other.
This also has other implications. If God is simple, God in Himself can have no name, which automatically means any name of God must apply to the “things around God”. God cannot be knowable by the natural activities of creatures, for creatures are complex and thus their activities are also complex and not simple like God.
-
Embed this notice
@bigbologna You didn’t hit anything. If anything, I’m having fun making you look like an idiot.
Very telling you didn’t post this response directly to any of my comments. Curious why that is. It’s almost as if you’re afraid people will find out that you’re lying.
-
Embed this notice
@bigbologna I was following what was being said and have concluded that you are the one entirely at fault, you were the one consistently strawmanning him
Did you really expect others to not check what has been said?
-
Embed this notice
@bigbologna >he posted nonsense
I understood perfectly what @BowsacNoodle wrote. I understand that atheists tend to be relativists, but come on, have some sense of shame. Just because you don’t understand something due to your stupidity and being over-emotional doesn’t mean something is unintelligible in itself.
-
Embed this notice
@bigbologna On a more serious note: being genetically an Israelite is insufficient. Anyone who has seriously read the Old Testament (which you clearly haven’t done) will know that idol-worship is basically a favourite past-time of even the biblical Israelites.
@BowsacNoodle you seem more well-read on this so correct me if I’m wrong.
-
Embed this notice
@bigbologna Dispensationalist moment
-
Embed this notice
@BowsacNoodle @bigbologna He also confuses biblical Israelites with modern Israelites and implicitly thinks birth is a sufficient condition, I’m not sure if talking to him is a productive use of your time
Statistics
- User ID
- 249346
- Member since
- 15 Mar 2024
- Notices
- 166
- Daily average
- 0
Plotinus Enjoyer
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the