u/Kind-Priority1711

Warning: I’ve been reading a lot of continental philosophy.

If we 1) affirm that God is Being, and thus contains the set of beings as it were, and 2) that the set of beings does not include nothingness, and 3) that sets themselves are not among their contents, should we not conclude that the innermost essence of God is a kind of nothingness or emptiness since Being is not one among the set of beings (or everything)?

Or to put it Thomistically, if God is purely active and has no capacity for passion, and if we take passion to be an essential potential for actual existence, would it not be the case that God’s essence is a kind of nothingness or emptiness, and that his existence (something) precedes his essence (nothing) because “nothing” precedes his existence in a literal sense? That seems like equivocation, I know, but I’m not trying to be sneaky; I propose that it is literally the case that “nothing” can be predicated of God’s essence. I understand some have a problem with this view because it seems to undermine the priority of the Trinity, but if we take nothingness as something ontologically prior and not temporally prior, the problem seems to dissolve. We might for instance affirm that the Father is this nothing-essence of being, which ontologically conditions the something-existence of being, and the relation of the something-existence of being to the nothing-essence of being to be the Holy Ghost (which follows logically since Being adheres to Being).

I understand that this kind of hyper-intellectual view can make God seem impersonal, but it fits remarkably well with the ethic of Christianity, I think, which asks us to be nothing so that Christ can be all-in-all.

Thoughts? Especially would appreciate insights from any clergymen or religious here.

EDIT: If you’re not gonna engage with any of the propositional content, you’re engaging in idle talk. I’m not interested in idle talk.

I am a Catholic seeking Martinist initiation, preferably in an organization that engages heavily with the operative work of Martines de Pasqually. Any resources would be much appreciated, thanks!

I’ve only worked with paper talismans thus far, and while they have been efficacious, I am in the process of planning a larger-scale operation which needs a bit more oomph. That being said, I am not a crafty person whatsoever and have no idea how I am to combine mineral, vegetable, and animal matter alongside telesmatic images with anything other than a sack, locket, or pillbox ring (which I don’t suppose will be large enough to hold the relevant synthemata). What do you all do?

This is alluded to in the Secretum Secretorum; I assume “fact” might be more accurately translated as “something done” or “something made,” but am unsure of whether this refers to some magical act or any fact whatsoever. Thanks!

I mean, how does one choose between the lord of the relevant house in the nativity and the planet traditionally governing the relevant effect desired? If I wanted to win the lottery and Saturn were the lord of my fifth house, when would I invoke Saturn and when would I invoke Venus? Is it just a matter of convenience? Like if Saturn had greater essential dignity, would one go that route? Can’t seem to locate guiding principles on this matter.