/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Dualism while everything is created by him, and in his image and likeness

>>735358

>everything is created in his image and likeness

I know you said this by mistake but that sounds like a hilarious heresy.

>>735346

Panentheism is pretty much a necessary Orthodox view, especially considering the essence-energy distinction.

I've seen many Catholics condemn this as a heresy and taking a dualist view instead though, so clearly it's not a universally agreed view.

How do you reconcile dualism with "For in him we live, and move, and have our being"?

A paradox: omniscience + omnipresence (Psalm 139:8) but not pantheism

There are a lot of mysteries that we currently dont know.

Pantheism denies God's omnibenevolence and implies he's directly responsible for satan's evils and there's no free will

>>735387

he literally gives us strength (among other things) but we aren't a part of God.

I think you're studying the consequence instead of the cause.

The cause of dualism is divine simplicity and of panentheism is the essence-energy distinction.

>>735582

essence-energy distinction is the final redpill

>>735428

>Pantheism denies God's omnibenevolence and implies he's directly responsible for satan's evils

He's not directly responsible but He allows Satan's evils to happen. If you don't acknowledge and form an argument in that context you will get your ass handed to you by fedoras. God allows evil because since He is the only Being that's perfect everything else must have some degree of evil or it's just a perfect clone of God and it's existence is redundant.

>and there's no free will

There is free will but not the kind you're thinking of. You can't have a will contrary to God's plan. You do however have logical capabilities to make the right decision.

>>735582

>>735659

Explain energy-essence distinction to me, a brainlet Protestant. I understand divine simplicity to some degree.

>>735678

There is no smarty one-liner that can explain the fundaments of Theology.

But this post is a good start

http://www.orthochristian.com/98156.html

Reading on Origen about how absolute divine simplicity implies uncreated matter is also good. Origen is not a Church Father, he's a heretic.

>>735428

>we arent a part of God

>we arent the body of christ

>>735346

Under this picture, dualism seems more accurate, however dualism generally means two competing gods like in Zoroastrianism or Manichaenism, so I would never use the phrase dualism to describe Christianity.

The proper view of God in Christianity is Trinitarian and Panentheistic, Trinitarian meaning a monotheistic deity in three persons, and panentheistic meaning God is around and within every part of the universe, while the universe is considered separate from God

>>735716

I thought Origen is a considered a heretic only due to his universalism, not that his conception of God himself was wrong

>>735716

I didn’t mean a smarty one-liner. But thank you, I will read it.

>>735673

>God allows evil because since He is the only Being that's perfect everything else must have some degree of evil or it's just a perfect clone of God and it's existence is redundant.

This means there'll be evil in the new heaven and new earth? Which I'm not aware of as being ann orthodox understanding to hold

>>735749

You’re just tripping yourself up over the word evil. It is doctrine that there will be varying degrees of bliss and suffering in heaven and hell.

>>735732

Origen was basically a turbo-Platonist, which lead to him being wrong about a lot.

>>735346

In Catholicism God created everything ex nihilo (out of nothing) by necessity otherwise he would share his divine essence with creation which is a logical fallacy which ends up in pantheism. God spoke everything into existence using his intellect or Logos. Everything only existences because it is sustained by God and if God decided to no longer "know" something then it would cease to exist. (I actually would be interested in someone corroborating or correcting that statement considering what Christ said about not knowing those who go to hell and annihilationism being heresy).

>>735716

Please give a brief explanation. I have never heard anyone actually explain what the essence energies distinction is and I'm starting the believe its just a weasel words meme

>>735387

God maintains the universe down to the subatomic level, and further. It doesn't have to be a part of God to work this way.

>>736109

This.

>>736108

Just read the article tigga.

>>735346

I like how we can picture this from outside as if we were able to see it.

If we are in the blue part (universe) then we are completely unable to tell which model is correct from our point of view.

In short this is a philosophical theory and it can be very confusing and offer no help toward salvation.

pro tip: imagine the relations between the universe and the Creator in the way you want, as long as it helps your mind to relate with God.

>>736175

Too much verbal diarhoea. Can no one explain energy-essence distinction without reams of anti catholic fluff?

>>735409

it's funny because Laura Vicuña was actually very aboriginal and tigger-like

but we catholics turn everything into beautiful white people

hitler would be proud 1488 tbh

>>736202

You don't get it because you don't know what each word represents and implies. Theology is complicated, it would be much more if we hadn't unified terminology. You must learn it as you study, don't be lazy.

God is both far away (essence) and close (energy). Always both at all times, and these never go into dialectical tension. Without energy (which is what western thought teaches: absolute divine simplicity) there is little way for God to interact with the world.

Absolute divine simplicity implies absurdities like uncreated matter, which is hellenism. And on a laity level, God becomes this far away military general who is looking for half of an excuse to send people to Hell, it becomes Islam.

>>736226

>complaining about "dialectics"

Dyer plz go.

>ADS -> uncreated matter

Literally how?

>>736248

Not him, but I think it goes like this: If God is aboslutely simple all his attributes are identical with his essence. Therefore his essence is to be a creator. Therefore he is eternally creating. Therefore there was never a time that creation did not exist since there was never a time that God was not creating since it is his essence to create.

>>736226

You could have explained better if you didn't waste words saying tropes like theology is hard, don't be lazy or misrepresenting hhow laity view God. I would love to hear Eastern apologetics that did not barely conceal digs at Catholicism in every sentence, but it is rare to see without being couched in bitterness like a scorned woman.

I looked up the etymology of essence and energy as that usually sifys through the chaff. Essence is ontology or being, so describes the nature of God. Energy is activity and describes God's interaction with creation. I'm under the impression that Socratic, platonic and aristoleian philosophy thought of the logos and divine spirit to be the energy of God that interacted with the world, and that early western and thomistic christian theology accepted and christianised it. So correct me if I am wrong but would it be fair to represent western theology on the matter as: the Father is the principle of essence which the logos and holy spirit eternally receive from him, however the Father uses the logos and/or the holy spirit as the energy to interact with creation, hence why only those who have the son and holy spirit can have the father for they view the father through the Logos.

>>736226

All these implications of divine simplicity seems absolutely made up every time I hear them.

It seems to me it's all just an abstract imaginary system of logic made up by greek guys, which conflicts with another abstract system made up by latins.

Where in the Bible is all this? This is just abstract imaginary philosophy, a schism caused by philosophy and not faith.

I used to think dualism but I think the Bible is more Panentheist.

>>735359

https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/the-energy-of-god-in-nature/

tlfr:

God created the universe out of nothing.

God governs, maintains and provides for the creation through His uncreated energy and not by means of created laws.

The energy of God is single, but it is differentiated into many energies according to its results, namely: existence-bestowing, life-giving, wisdom-imparting or glorifying.

“All things participate in the creative energy of God, but not in His glorifying energy.”

Only the angels and saints participate in the glorifying energy of God. The creative and sustaining energy of God exists in creation.

————————–

Creation (and creatures) are distinct from God, created from nothing yet free, but they don't have distinct (independent, self-sustaining) existence apart from God. He sustains and maintains creation 'going' trough His uncreated energies. He continues to do so because He is a loving God.

Dualism would mean creation continues to exist even if God's uncreated energies weren't sustaining it.

>>735678

I think without the essence-energy distinction Panentheism would lead to Pantheism.

>>735387

>For in him we live, and move, and have our being

Look at the meaning of "in", you cannot take the English literally in this case:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/17-28.htm

https://biblehub.com/greek/1722.htm