Theological Pressure Points

Some Ortho blogs have been advancing criticism of Calvinism for several years now.  Very little is new or different than the typical Romanist criticisms, except there is a heavier emphasis on “person,” “union,” and eucharist.  Much attention is paid to problems that some Protestants might have on Unity and Scripture.   These same guys invite “dialogue” from the Protestants.  Translation:  Come listen to us tell you how screwed up you are.  I started focusing on some questions they don’t like asked.  Here goes:

  1. What about the True Orthodox?  Honest reader, you tell me if they answered me as of 8:51 PM?  I remember four years ago when this same commenter sent me and a number of Reformed a question on why the Apocrypha shouldn’t be canonical.  I responded with the typical answer that Judith and Tobit are historical nonsense.  He deleted my response and told me it was “irrelevant.”
  2. Ask about how God can be both being and beyond being at the same time.  I then asked a few basic questions on how the Orthodox can say God has “energies” (plural) when Chalcedon only predicates one energy per nature.  Read the responses and tell me if they actually answered the questions.  I got a lot of quotations from Palamas on foreknowledge, but nothing actually dealing with the question.  I think this is why Jay Dyer mopped the floor with these guys four years ago.  For all of Jay’s faults, he actually thought through the issues.
  3. Ask if Pseudo Dionysius introduced neo-Platonism into the faith once delivered to all the saints.  I have demonstrated here that they hold to the same NeoPlatonism that they accuse the Filioque of.  You can read their responses and see if they gave anything close to an actual answer.

For the longest time many Orthodox have been bullying Protestants on a few key issues (which, btw, we have answers for.  They just don’t like them).   Turn the tables.  Ask the above questions.

Advertisements

26 comments on “Theological Pressure Points

  1. “Ortho.” That’s real nice. I’m sure they appreciate that one as much as I appreciate “Romanist.”

    • I really don’t have time to write out all words in full. Given some of the flak everyone introduces in these discussions, “Ortho” is extremely polite compared to what I have seen. (from both sides). These Ortho guys–some, anyway–ridicule Protestants but when I use the word “Ortho” it’s suddenly “not nice.”

      • “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” As I should remember so often myself. I’m sorry for giving you a hard time. But a little kindness and patience and charity, rather than ill will and scorn, goes a long way in these sorts of discussions.

      • No offense taken, but I hope you don’t see those words as “scorn.” I take it you have never seen a real Protestant-Orthodox-Catholic internet debate? Compared to those, terms like “Romanists” are marks of kindness!

      • I know internet debates can get nasty. I know I’ve been a part of the nastiness before, but I pray I can keep some form of charity. I don’t like to see debates get nasty. I think we would all make much more progress if we would listen to each other and try to be clear ourselves, not deride each other.

  2. olivianus says:

    Jacob,

    Great articles recently. I think you may have surpassed me in some areas of Orthodox Theology proper. I like it.

  3. olivianus says:

    Reblogged this on Uncreated Light and commented:
    Good Article by Jacob! Jacob (Bayou Huguenot) seems to have mastered my criticisms of Eastern Orthodoxy and given the Eastern Orthodox, over at Orthodox Reformed Bridge quite a task.

  4. John says:

    I’ll prod them a bit. I’m curious myself as I have talked about the issue of the “True Orthodox” with my priest some time ago.

  5. Eric Castleman says:

    Well, labeling us “anchorites” is something I find childish and uncalled for, since anchorites live a monastic life, whereas the overall life in Orthodoxy is the ascetic life, not the monastic life alone.

    Second- I will be more impressed when you take this arguments to people you felt a year ago were the best defenders of Orthodoxy, such as the people at energeticprocession.com, until then, I don’t know if you feel very confident in the positions you are now putting forward. I know that some of them are just waiting to hear from you on these things. Also, when I left the reformed church, I went after the best thinkers, just as much as I went after the best arguments, because it was about me being able to sleep at night, not about me trying to sound right.

    Third- Jay Dyer has crowned himself as victor in his rebuttal of all of Christianity, which includes the reformed who label themselves as such. Yet, if you ask him about reformed theology, he won’t even take it seriously http://jaysanalysis.com/2013/01/14/calvinism-is/

    On top of this, he still ponders Christianity as a possibility, but it isn’t the reformed kind..go ask him. So I don’t see how highliting him on your blog is a benefit to your views. Ask him about Drake . He even linked me to Perry’s video on youtube rebuking Drake as proof that Drake is a weak thinker, and that Perry barely had to try (this was after Dyer left Christianity btw) why you are using him for your defense is beyond me.

    Fourth – your arguments that Orthodoxy argues that reformed theology is platonic ,yet, we are as well, is the tu quoque fallacy, since it doesn’t answer the objection, but just argues that we do the same…( you’re ship is sinking – so is yours). It doesn’t fix the problem. This is at the heart of why I find all of Drake’s arguments, and yours to be ineffective. It would not lead me to believe that reformed theology is now on the same level, but would lead me to leave Christianity all together, as Farrel, Daniel and Dyer have done, citing that Christianity is essentially Xtianity. It leaves me with why Christianity all together is erroneous

    This leads into my final point: go ask Daniel, Farrell or Perry what they think Plotinus’s view of multiplicity into the One would look like today…it wouldn’t be Theosis in Eastern Orthodoxy, but it would be like Hinduism or Buddhism, in that it is the lose of individualism..Dyer makes this same complaint about Buddhist conceptions of Nirvana since he thinks Buddhism argues against individualism, as does Plotinus .AND is exactly why Farrell argues that prior to Yahwehism, the world religions such as Hinduism and Egyptian neoplatonism were essentially the same…now, ask yourself..why did he leave Eastern Orthodoxy if it is essentially the same thing? Buddhism believes in the one world soul, and Platonists are the same in their view of the one…individualism is only a product of multiplicity. This makes no sense with a theology of personhood, and how theosis is the process in which individualism is highlighted, since it is TRINITARIAN.

    so, how does this (loss of individualism/identity) work with the Trinity? It would only work if the Trinity is a product of the One…from and evolution of one into 2-3- that would make sense, but that isn’t Orthodoxy, but simplicity, since the persons are products of the one nature. Orthodoxy doesn’t start with ONE but THREE.

    This isn’t to speak ill of Farrell of Daniel, since I see them as being consistent with their claims. Also, it would need to be considered a plausible position if we both are products of platonism. We need to see how reformed theology is not Neoplatonic, and how Orthodoxy is. Biblical defenses are not a way out, since Dyer has proven that Judaism trumps Christianity because the NT and the logos as well as the Trinity are also Greek inventions. It must go deeper,in a more philosophical defense (not to say that is what you are going to do)

    • Anchorite is no less offensive than any of the anti-Western (and specifically anti-Protestant) stereotypes on Orthodox forums.

      I will be more impressed when you take this arguments to people you felt a year ago were the best defenders of Orthodoxy, such as the people at energeticprocession.com, until then, I don’t know if you feel very confident in the positions you are now putting forward. I know that some of them are just waiting to hear from you on these things.

      Perhaps, but OrthodoxBridge gets at least ten times the traffic that EP does, and few people can actually understand half the stuff EP says (and that is from many Orthodox folks own admissions). OrthodoxBridge is specifically aimed partly at Reformed folk, whereas EP is not.

      Third- Jay Dyer has crowned himself as victor in his rebuttal of all of Christianity, which includes the reformed who label themselves as such. Yet, if you ask him about reformed theology, he won’t even take it seriously http://jaysanalysis.com/2013/01/14/calvinism-is/

      Jay and I have discussed this several times in the past six months. Anyway, I have actually linked to several specific rebuttals to Jay.

      Fourth – your arguments that Orthodoxy argues that reformed theology is platonic ,yet, we are as well, is the tu quoque fallacy, since it doesn’t answer the objection, but just argues that we do the same…( you’re ship is sinking – so is yours). It doesn’t fix the problem. This is at the heart of why I find all of Drake’s arguments, and yours to be ineffective. It would not lead me to believe that reformed theology is now on the same level, but would lead me to leave Christianity all together, as Farrel, Daniel and Dyer have done, citing that Christianity is essentially Xtianity. It leaves me with why Christianity all together is erroneous

      Are you asserting something specifically? I don’t remember arguing that EO argues that Reformed theology is Platonic. If you want to make the specific argument along the following lines: “If EO is Platonic, then Christianity falls,” then make it clearly. Otherwise, I don’t quite follow your logic.

      so, how does this (loss of individualism/identity) work with the Trinity? It would only work if the Trinity is a product of the One…from and evolution of one into 2-3- that would make sense, but that isn’t Orthodoxy, but simplicity, since the persons are products of the one nature. Orthodoxy doesn’t start with ONE but THREE.

      I don’t follow what you are saying, except that few Patristic scholars today (including some Orthodox ones) would accept de Regnon’s thesis that EO (or the Eastern fathers anyway) begins with the “three.”

      This isn’t to speak ill of Farrell of Daniel, since I see them as being consistent with their claims. Also, it would need to be considered a plausible position if we both are products of platonism. We need to see how reformed theology is not Neoplatonic, and how Orthodoxy is. Biblical defenses are not a way out, since Dyer has proven that Judaism trumps Christianity because the NT and the logos as well as the Trinity are also Greek inventions. It must go deeper,in a more philosophical defense (not to say that is what you are going to do)

      Now I think you are approaching something along the lines of an actual argument. Fair enough. I actually do intend to argue in the future how Reformed theology understood and set to distance itself from some neo-Platonic baggage, but for various and sundry reasons it never quite finished the job (Colin Gunton, an Anglican theology, has written several thousand pages arguing precisely this–as have all of Barth’s disciples).

      • Bayou,

        If the term is just as offensive ,then it seems you admit to stooping to the level of behavior you find objectionable. It hardly encourages reasonable discussion regardless of what others say.

        I have no idea what ORB gets in terms of blog stats compared to my own. Do you? As far as the number of people that can understand what I and others writer at EP, how do we get from their lack of comprehension to its falsity? Isn’t the point that you should engage and refute the best a position has to offer rather than weaker forms of it? And isn’t this directed at you and not others who can’t understand what is written at EP? Do you then mean to say that you do not understand most of what is written at EP?

        It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that Dyer is unstable. And when he was going back to Rome after flirting with Orthodoxy (how many times does that make it that he went back to Rome? 3? 4? 5? in the grand space o five years?) we had a discussion on FB which he seemed to back down on most if not all of his supposed unanswerable arguments against Orthodoxy in favor of Rome. That was two years or so ago I think. Must be a government conspiracy though.

        Platonic influence is a question of degrees. Second, there is plenty of Platonism in Reformed thinking both on divine incomprehensibility as well as reconciling freedom and determinism. Read Ennead 4. Where do you suppose they got their position on divine names and incomprehensibility from if not Catholic scholasticism? It is uncontroversial that such a dependence exists for the Reformed. Nor will Barth’s existentialist line get you out of Platonic metaphysics, it just moves one along the metaphysical spectrum. And Barth will lead you to not only Universalism, but a host of other problems just within the Reformed system itself. Barth is a non-starter.

    • olivianus says:

      Eric,

      “Fourth – your arguments that Orthodoxy argues that reformed theology is platonic ,yet, we are as well, is the tu quoque fallacy, since it doesn’t answer the objection, but just argues that we do the same…( you’re ship is sinking – so is yours). It doesn’t fix the problem. This is at the heart of why I find all of Drake’s arguments, and yours to be ineffective. ”

      >>>I think this is an unfair representation of my arguments. I am not saying that the Reformed system is Platonic in the Monad sense of Platonic. I present Clark’s system at ground level as the solution to the problem. It is not a tu qoque because Clark does not terminate on a monad but on the Nous. This was the basis of the disagreements with Van Til. Clark though that Man and God had proportional predicational overlap while Van Til, following the Dionysian tradition taught that Man and God were TOTALLY OTHER. This wedge is also at the basis of Adoptionist and Nestorian Christology which Perry has even admitted in a blog he wrote a while back. This is why Clark’s system is actually the opposite of Nestorianism. He just got confused on the meaning of nature and hypostasis as he was an old man on his deathbed when he wrote that unfinished monograph on the incarnation that was published amidst the protests of those who knew Clark the best in his personal and professional career. Ken Talbot and myself had a long conversation about this.

  6. olivianus says:

    Eric,

    Asserting that I am a weak thinker via Dyer, who whoever, is not an answer to my 58 Theses.

    “AND is exactly why Farrell argues that prior to Yahwehism, the world religions such as Hinduism and Egyptian neoplatonism were essentially the same…now, ask yourself..why did he leave Eastern Orthodoxy if it is essentially the same thing?”

    >>>He left because he kept seeing all of the juridical wrath of God and the Calvinism all over the Old Testament. These principles are not compatible with EO theology. He talks about this in his Yahweh the Two-Faced God videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObA0_usuMhM

    His Pelagianism forced him out of Christianity. I commend him for his consistency.

    “theosis is the process in which individualism is highlighted, since it is TRINITARIAN.”

    >>>Are you suggesting that avoiding the world soul of paganism and affirming distinct personhood is dependent on the EO view of the Trinity? If so I reject it as ad hoc. Your view of being and personhood allow no metaphysical distinctions because being and personhood are huperousia on your view and your affirmation of a singular numeric being among the divine persons, which also is ad hoc, precludes multiple persons.

    “ Orthodoxy doesn’t start with ONE but THREE.”

    >>>Ad hoc. Three what? You cannot appeal to three persons when there is only one nature. Jnorm and I strained this gnat out over at David Waltz’ blog:

    http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/concerning-orthodoxy/68-theses-against-jnorm-s-eastern-orthodox-theology-proper

    see sections 50-59.

    “Biblical defenses are not a way out, since Dyer has proven that Judaism trumps Christianity because the NT and the logos as well as the Trinity are also Greek inventions. It must go deeper,in a more philosophical defense (not to say that is what you are going to do)”

    I already answered Jay on this: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/answering-jay-dyers-jewish-objections-to-christianity/

  7. olivianus says:

    Perry,

    “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that Dyer is unstable.”

    >>>I have read you insulting Jay in this way too many times Perry. I disagree with Jay, but I believe he more than less honestly seeks after truth Perry and it is only your cunning deletion of a few emails you have sent to me that have prohibited me from exposing just how unstable you are.

    “Must be a government conspiracy though.”

    >>>As the descendant of a Southern group of people that were mass raped, tortured, pillaged and murdered during and after the so called American Civil War by the United States Government, any skepticism that the United States is involved in grotesque conspiracies, is nothing but willful ignorance and obstinacy.

    “Platonic influence is a question of degrees.”

    >>>I think that is the first thing I can say I have ever read from you that I agree with (As far as I can remember). I have tried to explain this to Jnorm more than once.

    “Second, there is plenty of Platonism in Reformed thinking both on divine incomprehensibility as well as reconciling freedom and determinism.”

    >>>Generally the former accusation is correct. The latter accusation only applies to Hyper-Calvinism.

    “Read Ennead 4. Where do you suppose they got their position on divine names and incomprehensibility from if not Catholic scholasticism?”

    >>>Agreed.

    “It is uncontroversial that such a dependence exists for the Reformed. Nor will Barth’s existentialist line get you out of Platonic metaphysics, it just moves one along the metaphysical spectrum. And Barth will lead you to not only Universalism, but a host of other problems just within the Reformed system itself. Barth is a non-starter.”

    >>>Agreed. This is why I follow Clark. It is my life’s mission to make sure his Philosophy books (Not necessary his theology books which are generally not very good), become standard issue in Protestant Seminaries.

  8. olivianus says:

    In general, I am waiting for an argument on why we have to expect perfection from the Reformers when they accomplished so many great things with the time they had.

  9. Drake,

    You can post whatever emails from me you like. Dyer is unstable. I am not the only person to say so. People who’ve met him in person describe him as probably schizophrenic or some other mental ailment. He changes positions about as often as Germans change underwear. As far as my own supposed instability. Uhm I’ve been in the same church for the better part of two decades. (crickets) I’ve never been under ecclesial discipline in any body I’ve been in. Nor have I been booted from any seminary. And every body I have left I have left with a good recommendation, with perhaps the exception of Calvary Chapel, but hey, its a personality cult. And I am the husband of one and only one wife. And I don’t remove posts or videos after making dogmatic claims in them either. All my stuff is still up.

    Ennead 4 on the fall of the soul uses the same arguments the Reformed use (as well as any Augustinian) for the compatability of freedom and determinism, which the Platonists pilfrered from the Stoics. It has nothing to do with hyper Calvinism. It has to do with Compatabilism as a position in Action Theory. The wholesale use of Stoic arguments can also be seenin Augustine’s work. This is not controversial or under dispute.

    I don’t need to hold the Reformers up to perfection, just whether they ended up being unbiblical and taught heresy or not. That is sufficient all by itself. And it isn’t the Reformers per se, but the Reformed tradition as a whole.

    Clark doesn’t get one out of the problems, particularly because he is committed to a form of Platonism as he self describes his own position (hows that for Platonic influence-so what he isn’t Proclean, but a middle platonic position instead, BFD), which reduces to a form of Idealism, not to mention his Nestorian Christology, Clark is another dead end. But it isn’t as if you will be moved by what I say. All in all it doesn’t matter to me at least until you can discuss matters with people without assuming they are deliberately lying just because they disagree with you, make a mistake or you can’t see how they could think otherwise.

    • olivianus says:

      Perry,

      As you yourself stated, the Platonic accusation is a matter of degrees. Clark’s ontology terminates upon the Nous not the Monad, thus he get gets out of tons of issues while your view openly terminates upon the monad huperousia.

      His Nestorian Christology was a product of his conflation of nature and hypostasis not his anthropology or theology proper. He died before he could finish the book so your case is speculation on a number of levels.

      I think I strained this issues out with Jnorm enough in the link provided above.

  10. Drake,

    Please re-read what I wrote. I didn’t say that the Platonic “accusation” admits of degrees. I stated that influence is a matter of degree. If Christians weren’t influenced by the surounding culture that would be a reason for thinking Christianity was a myth.

    Collapsing the One into the Nous just tells me what I already stated. It is a middle Platonic position and just as Platonic as any Proclean model. So then your argument is betwen two Platonic models, not between Platonic and Non-platonic.

    His Nestorianism not to mention his idealism is a product of his Platonism, which structured his anthropology. There is sufficient material in his book to draw that conclusion. His closest expositors drew it and they continue to do so to this very day. Even you did, which is why you seemed to have removed the posts where you did. In the main I’ve seen what you’ve written and it still is not Chalcedonian. Its some halfway position or at least it was. From what I can tell the position in the link above is a form of Apollinarianism along the lines of Bill Craig where a nature is a set of properties.That is not going to work either.

    To say that something is such by nature but not by logic seems confused, since logic is a wider category than metaphysics and encompasses the latter. So that seems like a dead end. The rest of the convo there strikes me as entirely confused. I am off to church with my family. Ciao.

    • olivianus says:

      Perry,

      The accusation is based on the alleged influence. You are playing games again.

      I said nothing about collapsing the one into the nous.

      Platonic is not the word I wish to distance myself from, but Monadic.

      I already showed the Nestorian accusation is absurd in my reply to Eric above.

      It is your tradition which cannot settle with Chalcedon for it uses the word consubstantial generically and your Dionysian tradition has it numerical. This is the monoousios innovation that David Waltz and myself have spilled much ink on. As far as I can tell your blog has failed to scratch the surface of this issue.

  11. Drake,

    Do not accuse me of dishonest behavior.I am not playing games. I am making a distinction. This distinction is used by numerous scholars. if you reject the distinction, give an argument.

    That there is platonic influence is without question. Of course that influence goes in both directions. Platonists were influenced by Christian doctrine. There is also a measure of Stoic influence as well. But influence doesn’t necessarily mean whole sale borrowing. So again, the question of influence admits of degrees. It is superficial, substantantive, expressive, is it modified from source to target? etc.

    You don’t need to say anything about collapsing the One into Nous. That is the move and it was done long before Clark in Middle Platonism and picked up by Marius Victorinus and then Augustine, which is where Clark is getting it from. After all, how do you think you get just one Nous? I’ve read Thales to Dewey too ya know.

    If Platonic is not the term you’d prefer to move away from then the debate is not between Platonism and non-Platonism, but which species of Platonism you endorse and which you reject. That seems to undermine “scripturalism” not to mention the claim that the Reformed tradition, even in Clarkian form is set apart from Platonism. In any case, “monadic” can be said in many ways, so you’d have to produce an actual proof that monadic means what you claim and then further proofs that they imply or entail the problems you claim that they do. I’d recommend starting with sentential logic to lay out your proofs.

    You can assert that you showed that the Nestorian accusation is absurd, but I am free to reject that assertion. I don’t think anything you’ve written shows it. Your consistent misreading of McGuckin in your exchange with Jnorm I think is proof enough I think. I am sure you disagree, but I don’t care.

    I don’t take Damascius’ view to be incompatible with Chalcedon and neither did plenty of Chalcedonians. So you’d need to provide a proof that the two traditions are incompatible.in the way you claim. A big hint would be explaining how on Damascius’ side since God is beyond even number God can be numerically one. I can’t imagine how many steps in that proof you’d need, but I’d be willing to look at your display of it.

    As for the ilk you and David have spilled, while I have seen some of it, the quantity of the ink doesn’t unfortunately imply anything about its quality. My opinion is that you both more often than not seriously misread sources and give very bad arguments or give assertions as if they were. In any case, none of this is new from you so there is no further reason for me to interact with you.

    As far as what my blog has touched, if I thought anything you presented was a serious threat, I and others would spend the time addressing it. But I don’t and neither do the other contributors. Besides, given enough time, you censor yourself, retract positions (as well as videos, posts, etc.) and end up endorsing even worse things without us having to life a finger. Besides, what benefit is there to doing so? Does your blog get half a million hits a day? Do you publish in journals? Do you host symposiums? Are you the head of some denomination or some major theologian somewhere? Never fight a battle where there is nothing to win.

    • olivianus says:

      Perry,

      “You don’t need to say anything about collapsing the One into Nous. That is the move and it was done long before Clark in Middle Platonism and picked up by Marius Victorinus and then Augustine, which is where Clark is getting it from. After all, how do you think you get just one Nous? I’ve read Thales to Dewey too ya know.”

      >>>The one God is the Father. Thus the ultimate principle of all things is one nous.

      “If Platonic is not the term you’d prefer to move away from then the debate is not between Platonism and non-Platonism, but which species of Platonism you endorse and which you reject.”

      >>>Agreed.

      “That seems to undermine “scripturalism” not to mention the claim that the Reformed tradition, even in Clarkian form is set apart from Platonism. In any case, “monadic” can be said in many ways, so you’d have to produce an actual proof that monadic means what you claim and then further proofs that they imply or entail the problems you claim that they do.”

      >>>And I have written hundreds of pages on that very topic.

      “I’d recommend starting with sentential logic to lay out your proofs.
      You can assert that you showed that the Nestorian accusation is absurd, but I am free to reject that assertion. I don’t think anything you’ve written shows it. Your consistent misreading of McGuckin in your exchange with Jnorm I think is proof enough I think.”

      >>>More assertions.

      “I am sure you disagree, but I don’t care.”

      >>>And I don’t care that you don’t care but here is the difference: I have cataloged in great detail exactly why:

      http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/41-reasons-why-i-am-not-eastern-orthodox/

      Moreover, you have not written out a complete theory. Do so and I may start to care what you think.

      I have earned the right to not care what you think. You have not done the same with me.

      “I don’t take Damascius’ view to be incompatible with Chalcedon and neither did plenty of Chalcedonians. So you’d need to provide a proof that the two traditions are incompatible. in the way you claim.”

      >>>Two traditions? You mean the Nicene vs. Post Nicene or Cappadocian? David and I have agreed that the issue is partly that the Pre-Nicene and Nicene Tradition is contradictory to the Post Nicene Tradition, but also partly that the way that homoousios is used in general throughout the Ecumenical Councils is confused.

      The fact is Chalcedon uses the term consubstantial to define the similarity of Christ’s humanity to ours. This is obviously generic and not numeric. Then I have shown from Davis and Kelly that Nicea taught a generic view of homoousios and not a numeric view:

      http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/homoouiosgeneric-or-numeric/

      http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/jnd-kelly-on-homoouios-generic-or-numeric/

      “A big hint would be explaining how on Damascius’ side since God is beyond even number God can be numerically one. I can’t imagine how many steps in that proof you’d need, but I’d be willing to look at your display of it.”

      >>>It is funny that you say this because I brought up this exact point with Jnorm:

      “I am not ignoring it, I am just forced to take the words of your philosophers honestly and they say that both essence and hypostasis are huperousia. The only thing in being for us to even speak about with human language is the energies and so I don’ even know why you want to write or talk about what your God is because the only thing that could benefit anyone is if they were in your presence as you are some glowing ball of energy or something like that. It is all about the union of ignorance so let’s just turn our minds off and pursue the Plotinian ecstasy for crying out loud!”

      http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2012/09/basil-great-letter-cxxv-excellent.html

      I’m still trying to get a straight answer on why you guys even write or study theology at all. A good friend of mine is a devout Hindu and the way you both explain God and predication about God is identical. The Hindus are consistent enough to take that to its logical consequence and require no doctrinal formulations of anything. He frequently challenged me on this point and demanded that all religions were true precisely because God is unspeakable and outside of human language.

      I am waiting for any real meaningful reason why your religion is anything different from Hinduism.

      “As for the ilk you and David have spilled, while I have seen some of it, the quantity of the ink doesn’t unfortunately imply anything about its quality. My opinion is that you both more often than not seriously misread sources and give very bad arguments or give assertions as if they were. In any case, none of this is new from you so there is no further reason for me to interact with you.”

      >>>More assertions.

      “As far as what my blog has touched, if I thought anything you presented was a serious threat, I and others would spend the time addressing it. But I don’t and neither do the other contributors.”

      >>>More insolence. I’ll take that as your admission that you cannot answer the clear problems before you. You are just another in a long line of insolent men who do little but assert their own opinion is right.

    • jay008 says:

      Who are the people that know me that say I’m schizo? Lol How do schizophrenics interview international figures? If you mean that I changed my mind too many times, what’s the acceptable number, since you’ve been two or three different things? As for EO yes I went back and forth but chose not to be chrismated.

      • I don’t think Drake or I said you were schizo, for the record. In fact, I think I will publicly link to your refutations, so to speak. Not that I necessarily agree with your conclusions, but I think you raised a lot of good issues.

      • olivianus says:

        Jay,

        For my part, I did not say that about you Jay. I defended you against that accusation. Above on Feb. 10 I said,

        “I have read you insulting Jay in this way too many times Perry. I disagree with Jay, but I believe he more than less honestly seeks after truth Perry and it is only your cunning deletion of a few emails you have sent to me that have prohibited me from exposing just how unstable you are.”

      • olivianus says:

        I disagree with you but I have learned many things from you and have benefited greatly from your writings.

Comments are closed.