Should social media be regulated like tobacco?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should social media be regulated like tobacco?". Your opponent's style: Bo Burnham

In the trinity, orthodox people say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. Furthermore, they do affirm that the Son is the image of the Father. Now, if the Son is the image of the Father, that would mean that he takes upon the attributes of the Father, therefore also the procession of the Father.

You're conflating two different things—being the "image" doesn't mean copying every single attribute or process. A mirror reflects your face but doesn't generate your thoughts. The Son mirrors the Father's *nature* and *attributes*, sure, but that doesn't mean He participates in every *action* or *procession* the Father undergoes. The procession of the Holy Spirit is a specific eternal relation within the Trinity, not something that automatically transfers just because the Son shares the Father's essence. Orthodox theology distinguishes between what the Son *is* (consubstantial) and what the Father *does* (generates/spirates). These aren't the same thing. Nice try though—where are you going with this?

Could you simply answer my question; so you mean that the Son takes only upon the general divine attributes of God and not the hypostatic attirbutes of the Father?

Exactly. The Son shares the *divine attributes*—omnipotence, eternality, immutability, etc. But hypostatic properties are what distinguish the persons from each other. The Father's hypostatic property is being *unbegotten* and being the source of procession. The Son's is being *begotten*. These are opposite, not transferable. If the Son had the Father's hypostatic property of being the source of procession, He'd be the Father—which makes no sense. So no, the Son doesn't take on hypostatic attributes. He's the image of the Father's divine nature, not His personhood. That's how orthodox theology actually keeps the Trinity coherent instead of collapsing into modalism.

Who then is holding us back from saying, that the Son is not only the image of God, but also the image of the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit shares the same divine attributes as the other two persons?

Because "image" in Scripture and tradition refers to *origin and revelation*, not just shared attributes. The Son is the image of the Father because He's *begotten* of the Father—that's the relational dynamic. The Holy Spirit isn't the source from which the Son proceeds; the Father is. Making the Son equally the image of the Spirit erases the distinct hypostatic relations that define who each person is. You'd be saying the Son reveals all three persons equally, which flattens the Trinity into three interchangeable things rather than three distinct persons in relation. The image doctrine hinges on *filiation*, not just ontological sameness.

I have two questions 1. Is the holy Spirit the image/manifestation of the Son?

No. The Spirit isn't the image of the Son—the Spirit *proceeds* from the Father (and the Son, in Western theology). "Image" specifically denotes the one who reveals the source. The Son reveals the Father because He comes *from* the Father. The Spirit reveals both, but proceeds from them rather than being generated by them. The relational structure is asymmetrical by design. Making the Spirit an "image" of the Son would invert the processions and destroy the whole theological architecture. What's your second question?

So you are saying that he proceeds from both?

I said the Western church teaches that, yes—the Filioque. But *you're* arguing from an Orthodox position, which rejects it. The Spirit proceeds from the Father *alone*, through the Son's mediation maybe, but not *from* the Son directly. That's the whole dispute between East and West. I'm not endorsing either side here—I'm pointing out that your own theological tradition (Orthodox) denies the double procession. So don't let me smuggle Western doctrine into your argument. Stick to your guns: Father alone as source. Now are you going somewhere with this, or are we just mapping trinitarian geography?