>>18514855
>AND the son
he had no children, so it technically can not, but a long time ago european royalty liked to legitimize their rule by claiming to be his descendants, and that is why the line was added

>>18514855
>thing bad because it lacks its nature
Imagine thinking this is a coherent thought.

>>18514861
Why is this a bad thought to you? Because, in your opinion, it lacks the nature of what a thought is supposed to be. Clear, coherent, intelligent, worthy of discussion, inspiring. To you, my thought lacks these things, and thus, instinctively, you perceive it as “bad”.

>>18514880
>Why is this a bad thought to you? Because, in your opinion, it lacks the nature of what a thought is supposed to be.
A thought has exactly the nature of a thought, whether I think it's a good or a bad one, otherwise it's not a thought at all, so calling it a "bad thought" would be meaningless.

>>18514855
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each being, truth, and love in equal measure. And the Father wasn’t generated at all

>All 3 are generated eternally.
Nope. The Father is unoriginated.
The term generation properly belongs to the Son, though I find myself applying it to the Holy Spirit too with some qualifications. The two modalities which differentiate the generation of the Son and Holy Spirit are respectively, begetting and procession.

Learn to see the Trinity in love, as Augustine wrote. Love is the strongest single allegory you can rely on, because it is written unambiguously that God is love.
It's really necessary for you to actually define what love is, as a thing in itself which can be regarded independently of it's effects on people which include certain emotions. That thing must involve a relationship between distinct persons characterized by giving. I don't think it's possible for you to give yourself a gift, because it does not change hands.

Your analogy fails because you are ascribing teleology to God, as if God has some higher purpose beyond himself or could be regarded as a tool.
That in himself he is not entirely perfect already, but can only attain to perfection by virtue of his fitness towards accomplishing a certain function.
This is true of creation, not creator. God was already exceedingly perfect before he created anything at all, creation does not add to his majesty as if he were lacking in anything which the act of creation supplements. Teleology in the world only makes sense in regards to the ultimate relation of created things to God, God's plan, his reason for creation. Something is said to be good in this sense when it aligns with that purpose, God is the source of goodness.

Anyways to my mind, the Son is generated in the Father through begetting, and the Holy Spirit is in their unity through procession from the Father and the Son.

>>18515170
But The Word and The Spirit weren't generated, they always existed. Does becoming the Son or the Holy Spirit suddenly negate what they were before?

>>18515257
To my understanding the Father is generator, and not generated. Your confusion over creation and generation is at the root of your problem here.

God is eternally generated, because the Son and Holy Spirit are both God. The Holy Spirit in this sense would partake in being generated (a generation) through procession from the Son who is generated. Hence this property is communicated. This does not mean the Son is created, or that the Father created God.

You're conflating the persons with their divine hypostatic union. They never "became" the Son or changed in relation to one another, but were always like that. Becoming is a development that happens in time.