[0:00]But do you do you would you say with um so with Oriental Orthodox, do you affirm some type of divine simplicity or you do affirm some type of divine simplicity. Okay. With divine simplicity you're basically saying that God's love is God's anger in they they When it comes down to the affirming a formal distinction in how they're applied to one another thing, but they're really the same, yeah. Okay, so they're really the same. So God's love is God's anger. So, God's love would just be a display of his justice, right? So that would still be love. So the issue here is when you're we can wrap up the conversation quick because I don't want to Yeah yeah, I don't want to keep you too long. But when the issue is when you are doing that, and we as Muslims, Sunni Muslims, I'm Sunni. So we the reason we can't take divine simplicity from an Islamic position. I'm not sure if you're aware why. We have distinct names of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala in the Quran. We have like Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim, Al-Hayy, Al-Qayyum. So to say that all of these names and all of these attributes are the same, that is that is inconsistent from a Muslim position because they are clearly being distinguished in the Quran. How do you affirm a formal? So I'm just mentioning, the reason the reason that we don't believe um, yeah, sure. There have been people from the Islamic tradition that have affirmed divine simplicity, from the Islamic tradition, so for example, the philosophers, the al-falsafa, the Mu'tazilites, and the Shia also affirm some type of divine simplicity. But the reason that we there's plenty of reasons, first of all, I mentioned from the Quran and from the Sunnah. We have distinct names and attributes of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala. Another reason you can give for example is if you affirm that God's love and God's anger are the same thing, does God have do I have the ability to give um, can I give a loving action to you or I could be loving towards you and I can also be angry towards you, right? I have the free will to choose between being loving and being angry. Okay. Yeah yeah, sure. So I have free will, right? I have free will to be angry or to be loving towards you. With if you are affirming divine simplicity, if God's love is God's anger, he doesn't have free will. You are limiting your concept of God to not having free will because if God it can God be loving and not angry towards you? Can God be loving and not angry towards you? But then God's love is God's anger. No, that doesn't why not why not? again that's a formal distinction in how these things that are whole and they are free receive it, right? So if we're talking about energies and how we receive stuff, Yeah yeah. that will be according to us according to what energy, right? God's energy would be the same but applicable to differently to different situations. For example, if you sin, for example, God will be just and will have wrath for you. That's out of his love for you. Because he loves you, he treats you sternly. But can he choose to can he choose to just selectively apply his wrath and not his anger? And and not his um love, sorry. His applic his application of his wrath is his application of his love. He cannot he cannot He is all love. By definition. So you cannot cease to love people. It's impossible. When he's being wrathful, he is being loving in that wrath. That wrath is just how you've received it because you are a sinner. I'm not I'm not obviously Yeah no, I understand. I understand what you're saying. But for me uh we could I know you mentioned you're not too comfortable talking about metaphysics, I'm not either. No I don't I don't like uh essence and energy. Essence and energy, yeah, so I won't dwell on it too long. I try to. Sure, sure, sure. Sure. So for me, that's the reason because you also said that God whenever he is applying his wrath, he has to simultaneously apply his anger and oh sorry, he has to simultaneously apply his love. Whereas we as Sunni Muslims, we have a distinction between love God's love and God's anger and God has the free will to choose what he wants to do because he's God at the end of the day. He's not limited by having like divine simplicity, it all comes back to um every action and every attribute is the same, right? So it can kind of go into a modal collapse as well, which is why I'm not I'm not going to go to, which is not why I'm going to go into.
[5:04]No, no, but that is secondary essence. That's just what the definition of God is. Well, you can define in different ways. In English language you can define parts in many ways. I mean, it's philosophical but The metaphysical definition of part will be that I have to persist For example, you can have soul and will but I don't I don't hold myself to metaphysical expertise so yeah, no, I understand, you know. Yeah, yeah, no, I understand I don't hold myself to metaphysics expertise, so yeah, no, I understand, you know. I don't like uh essence. But this is the point I'm trying to make. If you're affirming distinct realities and things that are really distinct, and that are still on the under the, But they're not holy separate to God's essence. No. They're not holy. It doesn't matter. There's a real distinction and real non-identity between. If you're affirming a real distinction and a real non-identity between constituents of God, you're affirming a compositional God. No. But they're not holy separate to God's essence. No. They're not holy. It doesn't matter. There's a real distinction and real non-identity between. If you're affirming a real distinction and a real non-identity between constituents of God, you're affirming a compositional God. No. And further than that, the problem with the composite God is for anything to come into composition, it must be composed by something else. So then you're saying that there's a there's a God is not the first cause, and there's another cause. Yeah.
[6:02]Yeah, no, I understand. It's not my it's not my specialty, so I I'm happy to I'm happy to let hi ma Nice to meet you. So, if you're affirming distinct realities that make up one thing, that would No no, we don't we don't. When we say, they don't make up. That's the thing, like. Make up means like that. They're distinct parts that add to one thing, right? When something is when some okay, okay. If something if I say something is a part of you, and something is attributed to you, does something that attributed that is attributed to you always mean something as a part of you? Yeah, yeah. My hand, there's non-identity between my hand and my foot. Yeah. That's a real non-identity. And those are parts of my body. Sure. The same way, if you have non-identity and non and distinct real distinction, non-identity, non-identity and real distinction, right? Yeah. So when you as an orthodox, when you believe the essence is separate from God's energy, separate is wrong. Okay, okay, distinct. They can you affirm a formal distinction? You affirm a formal distinction. Yeah. You said, non-identity, so there's non-identity there. And then what? I was talking about if you're going to say parts, right? That would be non-identity. Sure. Because that would be a real distinction between two things. Right? We can still affirm to some extent our essence is his essence is his essence. His energies are his essence. So, you can affirm that his essence is his energy without distinction. His essence are his essence in relation to to creation. how we receive it. But they're distinct things. So how can you say? They're formally distinct. This is what formal distinction. It wouldn't be a real distinction. Always a formal distinction, because a lot I find like a lot of these know this respect, but like I find like a lot of these this definitions in Christianity are applied only in Christianity. They don't really exist outside of the realm of Christianity. I'm not sure if this is one of them, but, but like I didn't affirm that as if those terms are only existing in Christianity. That's what I said. But it does. I'm not necessarily saying that, but I'm saying like it's very it just seems a bit like when you're inventing your own definitions for your own theology, it does seem a bit off, right from my. For example, if God speaks to you as an entity, right? You you can't take because of course for your good for example, you're going to make up time. There are times in Islam that are not applicable than any of the Sure, sure. But we're talking about metaphysical terms right? Sure. Thing is, if he So, it's not physical. For example, as I said, that's why I use the position. Sure. We're not saying he has any other will to do anything else. That was the whole point. He doesn't have a will to do anything. He does not will to do anything but perfect. But the point was, he has the physical and mental capacity to complete this action. If he wills to do that, that's the whole other thing. He has the exact same will as as God. So he would never do such a thing. No, but he you just said he has the he has a possibility to do that. So he can't say he never does. I mean, are you do you affirm But I mean, I can say, you have a possibility to to go and kill all these people in the park, right? Kill him in the head. You're never going to do it. It's it's Been working on my temple. But But even more so, you're never going to you're never going to do that because it's not your will, right? God's will being so complete and unchanging, it would never be Christ's will. So there's no real mental capacity that that he's actually going to do that. But he is physically able to do it. Yeah. Sure, sure, sure. Sure. I won't dwell on it too long. I'll try to Yeah. You were just talking about free will. Yeah. You were just talking about free will.
[6:12]Yeah.
[6:59]I was talking about if you're going to say parts, right? That would be non-identity. Because that would be a real distinction between two things. Right? We can still affirm to some extent as essence is as essence. His energies are his essence. So you can affirm that his essence is his energy without distinction. His essence is his essence in relation to to creation. But they're distinct things. So how can you say? No, no, but this is a different point. For example, when you're saying there's non-entity. You don't say there's non-entity. For example, you don't say there's non-identity between my skin and the color of my skin, right? The color of my skin would be an attribute of my skin. There's a difference, yeah. My hand, there's non-identity between my hand and my foot. That's a real non-identity. And those are parts of my body. Sure. The same way, if you have non-identity and non and distinct real distinctions, non-identity, non-identity and real distinction, right? So when you as an Orthodox, when you believe the essence is separate from God's energies, separate is wrong. Okay, okay, distinct. You affirm a formal distinction. You affirm a formal distinction. Yeah. You said, non-identity, so there's non-identity there. And then what? I was talking about if you're going to say parts, right? That would be non-identity. Because that would be a real distinction between two things. Right? We can still affirm to some extent our essence is his essence is his essence. His energies are his essence. So you can affirm that his essence is his energy without distinction. His essence is his essence in relation to to creation. But they're distinct things. So how can you say? They're formally distinct. This is what formal distinction. It wouldn't be a real distinction. Always a formal distinction, because a lot I find like a lot of these know this respect, but like I find like a lot of these this definitions in Christianity are applied only in Christianity. They don't really exist outside of the realm of Christianity. I'm not sure if this is one of them, but, but like I didn't affirm that as if those terms are only existing in Christianity. That's what I said. But it does. I'm not necessarily saying that, but I'm saying like it's very it just seems a bit like when you're inventing your own definitions for your own theology, it does seem a bit off, right from my. For example, if God speaks to you as an entity, right? You you can't take because of course for your good for example, you're going to make up time. There are times in Islam that are not applicable than any of the Sure, sure. But we're talking about metaphysical terms right? Sure. Thing is, if he So, it's not physical. For example, as I said, that's why I use the position. Sure. We're not saying he has any other will to do anything else. That was the whole point. He doesn't have a will to do anything. He does not will to do anything but perfect. But the point was, he has the physical and mental capacity to complete this action. If he wills to do that, that's the whole other thing. He has the exact same will as as God. So he would never do such a thing. No, but he you just said he has the he has a possibility to do that. So he can't say he never does. I mean, are you do you affirm But I mean, I can say, you have a possibility to to go and kill all these people in the park, right? Kill him in the head. You're never going to do it. It's it's Been working on my temple. But But even more so, you're never going to you're never going to do that because it's not your will, right? God's will being so complete and unchanging, it would never be Christ's will. So there's no real mental capacity that that he's actually going to do that. But he is physically able to do it. I really appreciate the conversation. Thanks guys. What was your name, bro? Honor. Don't ask you, never. No, I know. I have the socks, yeah. Whatever. Nice to meet you, bro. I'll give you guys gifts, actually. It was a nice nice conversation. I mean, I don't know how much you guys looked into Islam. We didn't really get a chance to about that. Have you guys looked into Islam or is it more like you just from the No, not really. No, really. No, I mean, I really encourage you guys to um study the seerah of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. He's for us as like Muslims, we believe he's like the perfect example to humankind, right? And we believe he's the most like influential man, I mean, I'm sure you both agree that he was the most influential man after Isa Alayhissalam, which we believe is Muhammad. Yeah. In terms of like the impact he's had on the world in terms of, right, so I feel like if he if he is someone that's so influential, does it kind of um, it's kind of the honest is on you guys to like look into him, look into his character. Same as for you, I've asked for Islam. Yeah, sure, sure. And we we I do look into like I do I have looked into I don't think I've got the book I wanted to give, but I'll like anyway. Yeah, you have like a purely Islamic tradition. Why'd you say that? Because I see I see, for example, the Quran taking stuff that's played like Gnostic Syrian Aramaic from the Arabian peninsula, I love to. Is there something that you guys might be interested in, because you're orthodox, right? So you guys are interested in the traditions and this is a book um that talks about like the Islamic traditions and how um there's a lot of linkages there with the Old Testament and in terms of like the um Jewish traditions, pre temple destruction. So, yeah, if there's something and I mean, this is another book, it's a really good book. Um it's called Zealot. So, it's by Reza Aslan. Who, Sorry? What say about? It's about um, he takes a very historical approach to the figure of Isa Alayhissalam. Oh, yes please. So yeah, this is a very interesting book. I mean, yeah, you guys feel free to share the books, but I thought I'd gift you guys something for the nice conversation. It was a nice conversation. Yeah, this is my brother Idris over here. Who, yeah. Thanks. No worries guys. Yeah, both of them. So, Yeah. So, I'll give you back to you. I'll give you back. No, no, don't worry, man. Don't worry. Keep it keep it, man. Yeah, yeah, sure. Maybe maybe this one if we catch each other, it's let me know where the bookmarks were, but. Yeah. All right, thanks guys. All right, thanks guys. Assalamualaikum, brothers and sisters. We had a really nice discussion with these two um oriental orthodox Christians. It's not often we come across oriental orthodox Christians in the park. Um usually if they are orthodox, they're from the Eastern Orthodox tradition. We just covered a few topics that they wanted to raise with me um about prior discussion I had. Um I'm not rapping this. He's Yeah. So, um we talked about metaphysics and philosophy and as a Sunni Muslim, as an Orthodox Muslim, I don't like to delve into these topics, but I dove where I could um where it was appropriate and mentioned Bila Kayf on certain matters. Um we talked about the fact that in the Bible it mentions Isa Alayhissalam going to them was tempted in the desert. I mentioned that if Isa Alayhissalam was tempted according to them, he had a capacity within himself to succumb to that temptation. Otherwise, you can't tempt that thing or that person. So if he had a capacity within himself to be tempted by the thing he's been tempted to do, that means he was and it's very clear in the Bible he's tempted to sin. So if he's being tempted to sin, he was being tempted to go against God's will. If he has a capacity within himself to go against God's will, that means he cannot be God, because God and God's will cannot have a capacity within it to go against itself. So, we established that. I handed them a couple of books which I recommend to you all. Um one is Divine Diversity, which is by Rabbi Ben Abrahamson, which talks about um the Islamic tradition and how there's a lot of linkages there with the Old Testament tradition. And I also handed him a book and uh another historical book called Zealot, which is a very good book. I'd recommend if you're looking for a historical approach to the figure of Isa Alayhissalam. So, um thanks all for joining and inshallah I'll catch you all soon. Salaam alaikum. Yeah, good. Thanks, guys.
