Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
What is this?
Less
More
Memberships
No Anxiety Nation
287 members • $49/month
Inspiring Philosophy Academy
65 members • $25/month
314 contributions to Inspiring Philosophy Academy
17h •
Question for the Hangout Sessions on Skool...
Quick note: it's impossible to share our screens on these calls when Tim/Matt aren't there. Is there a way to permit access in general for these calls specifically? LMK if that's an issue with security. Thanks!
1 like • 17h
That’s a good question. That’s at the edge of my knowledge currently…
2d •
Last post tonight…
I did what @Tim Howard recommended and created a spam TikTok to scroll through arguments against God and PoE. …TLDR: my brain hurts…goodnight, lol.
1 like • 24h
Good work 🔥😂
2d •
Filioque and Monarchical Aspectivalism Trinitarianism
Following up on this post here. I recently watched a Jordan Travis vid where GodLogic asks him about the filioque: curious if Sijuwade's model is able to account for the filioque or if it ignores it? Also, if he addresses this already, then please show me as I may have missed it... I notice the language of "eternally generates the son" and "eternally proceeds from the Father," yet Jordan Travis identified that the Holy Spirit can also proceed eternally from the Son since the Son does what the Father does and thereby makes the Son and the Spirit demonstrably relationally distinct. Really interesting to me. If anyone has pushback or clarity then please, by all means. Curious to know if you have thoughts here @Liam Moore since you mentioned you read up on this recently.
1 like • 2d
@Jermaine McClellan All good thoughts. On the Conciliar view, the Son and Spirit are distinguished by their relation of origin. The Son as *begotten* The Spirit as *proceeding* As for the two-source problem, it throws a wrench into the homoousion (the Son and Spirit are of the same substance as the Father). For if the Father is one source, and the Son is another, then you now have two sources of divinity. But that’s exactly what Conciliarism denies — for the Son and Spirit of the same Divinity as the Father (co-relativity). Thus, this gives us a dilemma: If the Son possesses the same divine essence as the Father, Then the Spirit possesses that exact same essence too. So why wouldn’t the Spirit also possess the source-making feature? If the Son possesses a hypostatic source-property distinct from the essence, then the Father and Son are both sources of the Spirit, giving you two *hypostatic principles* and compromising the Father’s status as monarchy. Remember, the homoousion requires that the persons do not possess three instances of divinity. They *subsist* in the same numerically undivided divine essence. Hope this helps!
1 like • 2d
@Jermaine McClellan As for that 2022 paper, Sijuwade has since rejected his stance as affirmed in the paper. He has updated his thoughts and written them elsewhere. For now, cite this paper from 2025 https://philarchive.org/archive/SIJCTA
2d •
Mike Jones Saturday Q&A!
Yo guys, Michael will be hosting the Q&A tomorrow! Bring your questions! As you can tell via the picture below, Mike is VERY excited :)
0 likes • 2d
[attachment]
2d •
Why did you join?
Was just reading @Than Christopoulos 's post again regarding listening to an argument and immediately doubting the Faith then listening to something good and having just a wave of doubt and faith that changes with each argument: it remind me of my reason of being in this community to really solve that problem. Definitely a major reason why I am in here. Was curious if there are different reasons for anyone else? What are they?
1 like • 2d
Supremely valuable post 👆🏽
1-10 of 314
@tim-howard-9482
Owner of Worldview Mastery and the Transcending Answers Academy™.
Active 51m ago
Joined Aug 26, 2024
Powered by