I am not Orthodox currently, but was contemplating the question of whether God has an ego in the Eastern sense, or for lack of a better term, "that which is self-referential and considers itself as a separate entity." That was earlier this week. Thank you for giving an answer as far as the Persons are concerned.

As a (probably) Protestant, love these videos and I have must respect for the Orthodox Tradition 🙏

I am in the process of converting to orthodoxy after decades of apostasy. A lot of orthodox spiritual concepts make sense to me thanks to my time New Age spiritualism. This however, mis absolutely melting my brain, in the best way, forcing me to rely upon my heart more. Thank you for this. Glory to God in all things (this phrase makes so much more sense as to why that is now)! 🙇🏻‍♀️🙏🏼☦️💖

This is the first longer video of yours that I've watched and it is exactly the PERFECT explanation for a theory I have been developing around "sacred geometry" being a fallen mathematical structure because it only exists in duality, whereas organic creation should be continually mutually sourced with God, in Trinity... It is much wider but that's the basic jist and this video taught me something profound about perceiving this on an even broader level. Will probably go and binge all your videos now 😅 Thank you, this was brilliant - and I am definitely buying your book!

I've watched a decent bit of Orthodox channels on youtube and your's is the best Orthodox channel out there

Great channel man, keep up the good work

Why should we feel shamed for enjoying gift giving even if the action could be deconstructed and viewed as an economic act? There are no selfless acts because we are self. A mother would feed her child because biologically there is a drive to do so, it could be viewed as selfless to give up her own resources to feed the child, if it was a physical detriment for her to do so. Let’s just suppose that if I give a gift and the receiver is grateful then the gratitude neutralizes my own self interest in giving it. Gratitude will be the great balancer, the good deed to stomp out whatever self-motivated urge encouraged I take the action.

WOW Wonderful stuff GOD bless you!

Added to playlist entitled: “Absolute Favourites”

Thank you for this interesting explanation! However, I wonder if by stating that “the Father only knows himself through forgetting himself in the Son and receiving back through the immediate and eternal affirmation of his fatherhood likewise …” one doesn’t embrace the concept of the Filioque. On the other hand, what does it as actually mean that “the Father knows himself only IN the Son and THROUGH the Spirit” and that “the Son is the perfect image of the Father and the Spirit is he who reveals the Son to the Father and vice versa”? Your comments would be really helpful! Many thanks! Kind regards, A.

Well done. Hated reading Derrida 😅

Any posibility that you discuss Tillich?

Very interesting analysis, thanks for sharing. In contrast with Derrida, I prefer the view of one of his own students, Jean Luc Marion, that the real point of Phenomenology is that the givenness of experience is more fundamental than any other feature which means, in turn, that experience itself must be a Gift (from God, as Marion is himself a Catholic thinker.)

🔥🔥

Is that Francis of Assisi?

Hello, so I am a highschooler trying to make sense of this video. I have no formal education in philosophy or theology, both being relatively small hobbies of mine. If God is pure subject and we stem from God, aren't we then rationally the expression of said subject, and therefore comprise God's actuality? Doesn't this then create a Monist, or rather Spinozian reality? To understand creation as distinct from God, or God's personhood, God needs essence and energy in a Palamist sense, in which we become expressions of God's grand *expression*/energy/actuality, rather than essence, and so we are distinct from it, and He remains uncharacterisable? God's energy is still God, it is not distinct from God. What you characterize here as divine gift relating to actuality comprises God wholly, it cannot simply be an act of God but be God Energetically (His Will as transcendental being, not purely some conceptual attribute. God is His attributes, He doesn't bear concepts distinct from Him, otherwise they would the have to exists by neccesity because of His existance, which is to say that God didn't freely will Truth and Love into existance), because God in His Ousia is entirely apophatic and so we can't speak of the Trinity within Him as Essence (not that it isn't within Him as Essence, but that we cannot speak it. Revelation is all Energetic). The Trinity rather is one in that they are the Energeia and the Ousia, each distinctly. To me, it is as if we are to take two humans, one wearing a red shirt and one a blue shirt, each being human in essence, but also bearing the same qualities and personhood, and thus being the same human. They are not distinct in their essence, neither in their personhood, but are evidently different as they bear entirely distinct expression. Maybe this sounds, or is too modalist of an analogy, but hopefully you understand the core of my thinking. I would also be careful in characterizing God, particularly our Philosophical god, because it is to form a rational, existing idol, understood trough concepts, and thus trough a paganistic athenian plurality. Jean-Luc Marion has quite interesting stances in relation to this. God, in the Palamist essence, doesn't "exist", and I say this as an Orthodox Christian. By this I mean that the Ousia is beyond space and time, so it is theologically real, but non-existing. A sort-of mystical realism. I would say existance is that which we can speak of, so that which is characterized by space and time. I am quite in agreement with Kant in his Transcendental Idealism, but I am becoming skeptical and am very much struggling with doubt. I don't understand either Fichte or Hegel. + As a Romanian, I am happy to see Staniloae mentioned.

King david on my moms side was My 600 generations great grandfather by blood no joke which means i am the indirect blood relative of jesus christ himself given the understanding the jesus christ was by blood connected to king david no jokes

Don't fall in the traps of modern entertainment philosophers like Derrida