Eric Viviers

Interconnected Theological Explorations /// Lifestyle of Theosis • Portals of Creativity • Dynamics of Fruitfulness /// Free Study Here:

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

You are created in the Image of God to:

• Participate in the divine nature
• Create art that awakens the nous
• Orient your desire toward marriage

I break everything down here: https://t.co/RheTkNGPYB

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

@Stephengold003 Yes. that brings me back to my point regarding Logos Spermatikos: the belief that God has been present throughout all of human civilisation regarding the establishment of morals, ethics, and values...

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

@FredC919 Would you mind explaining to me the scientific approach towards religion please? (The approach you are specifically referring to.)

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

The person who is disciplined in one domain and disintegrating in another cannot understand why:

• Strong in training, scattered at the desk
• Productive at work, absent at home
• Faithful in prayer, still ruled by appetite

The domains are not parallel tracks.

They are one system...

/// thread ///

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

The thief on the cross is a great example of God's Grace.

To me, after reading the Bible and researching the thief on the cross, it seems to arise from one specific instance where the thief was already on the cross with Christ in a state of repentance.

I'm guessing you might be reffering to an evolutionary principle that even though he was not baptized, he still entered Heaven, even though the Bible commands to be baptized? Am I understanding clearly?

If that is the case, the thief on the cross is more of an exception and example of God's Grace than i believe to be an example of religious evolution.

The standard for the average person is still clear. What God decides to do with that standard based on individual circumstances and context is an expression of God's graceful character.

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

evolution is neccessary. but i don't believe it exists as a seperate phenomenon apart from God

I believe that God creates evolution for certain morals to be advanced

my argument is that the basis for morals is not a construct of human evolution

for example:

the 10 commandments:

1. do not lie
2. do not steal
3. do not murder
4. do not commit adultery
5. etc.

these are basic moral values presented through religion as objective standards in the old testament

Christ came and doubled down on it.

For example, He said that even if we looked at a women with lust, we have already committed adultery within the heart.

My point is that the objective standard existed before it evolved into a more advanced moral value. It started as the act of adultery, and then became as serious as even the thought of adultery within the heart.

So in that sense i will steel man your position, but my claim is still that before it evolved, that was still a moral standard that was established in the old testament before it evolved...

I guess your point has to do with the moral standard that existed before that moral law was officially established, which seems to be non-existent before religion. Am i correct?

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

@Stephengold003 okay great. that's the answer i wanted to hear...

making the distinction between preference and standard

thanks for clarifying that :)

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

You are running two claims together.

1. Morality is only a social construct.
2. People who lived before the gospel / before a given religion cannot be judged by that religion.

(2) does not prove (1). It is a question about fairness of judgment, not about whether moral facts exist.

On (2): Christianity already says people are not judged as if they possessed revelation they never received. “Judged by what you know” is not a modern patch. That is an account of proportionate judgment, not of a sliding moral reality.

On (1): “social construct” and “evolution” explain how groups form and transmit norms. They do not answer the question you still have not answered:

By what standard is any constructed code better or worse than another?

If the answer is “there isn’t one,” then “people will be judged,” “that would be unfair,” and “religion shouldn’t condemn them” are also just local constructs.

If the answer is “harm,” “flourishing,” “reason,” “empathy,” or “what works for cooperation,” say so plainly. Then we can test whether that standard is itself only a construct, or whether you are treating it as if it were not.

Evolution can describe why a tribe punishes theft. It cannot tell you whether a tribe that praises theft is mistaken. Description is not a verdict.

You keep using verdict language. That is the inconsistency. Name the standard that makes your verdict more than a preference.

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

You are not answering my question though…

That verse implies creation. Not God’s character.

My answer is from a religious paradigm. You insist that human beings evolved towards morals, values, etc. which comes from a relativistic paradigm

My religious answer implying objective morality is a product of religious systems does not provide a basis for your relativistic claim that morals, ethics, and values are the result of evolution.

Therefore, you have answered neither of my questions.

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

@FredC919 When you speak of core, what are you referring to?

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

I understand your point. I am asking something more precise: how do you prove that God’s character includes both good and evil?

Isaiah 45:7 is often used that way. The KJV says:

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

Most modern translations do not leave “evil” as moral wickedness, because of the Hebrew word raʿ. It can mean moral evil or calamity, disaster, adversity. In this verse it is paired with shalom (peace / well-being), so the contrast is blessing versus disaster, not righteousness versus sin.

The chapter is about God raising Cyrus to overthrow Babylon and restore the exiles. The point is monotheism: there is one God who rules light and darkness, prosperity and calamity. It is aimed at dualism (a good god of light versus an evil god of darkness), not at the claim that evil is part of God’s nature.

That verse does not teach that God is the author of moral evil. Scripture is explicit elsewhere:

• God is light, and in Him there is no darkness (1 John 1:5).
• He cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself tempts no one (James 1:13).
• Everything He made was “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Moral evil is a choice against God’s will. It originates in the rebellion of free creatures. God created the possibility of that choice. He did not put evil into His own character.

I am not struggling with the morality of God, and I never said I was. Please point to the exact line where you think I am. And if you are referring to Christians, by what objective standard do you conclude that we struggle with the morality of God?

You still have not answered the original questions though, and i see you are repeating your initial statements without justification...

From what paradigm can you objectively prove that God’s character includes both good and evil?

God can create or permit these conditions because He transcends them. The ultimate Good is the ground of the distinction between good and evil. That does not mean evil belongs to God’s character.

Also, from what paradigm do you conclude that human beings evolved morals, values, and ethics? From what i can observe, it seems to be relativistic, which makes it difficult for you to make objective truth claims in this scenario.

You seem to treat that evolution as something that can be established apart from God. That cannot be objectively proven from a relativistic framework. If values are only products of chance, survival, and culture, you have no objective framework for making any form of moral truth claim...

The moral language we still use — dignity, justice, guilt, rights, the wrongness of certain acts — did not arise in a vacuum. It was formed by religious systems that shaped law, politics, and culture. We take that inheritance for granted and then speak as if it were self-evident from nature alone?

So I am asking again, without the side issues:

1. By what standard do you prove that evil is part of God’s character, rather than something God rules over and judges?
2. By what standard do you prove that morals are the product of evolution apart from God, rather than something we inherited from a theistic moral order?

Those are the questions. The Isaiah verse does not answer them in the way you are using it.

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

What do you mean by 'superiority of salvation'? Are you referring to something i implied? I'm not 100% sure where you are coming from regarding that statement.

Regarding the difference between divine nature and nature would depend on what you are describing...

Since we are made in the Image of God (and our bodies are Temples of The Holy Spirit), God became man -- Jesus Christ, and human nature (Christ -- Fully God -- Fully Man) sits at the right hand of the Trinity, we are able to partake in the divine nature of God.

For me to differentiate between divine nature and nature i would have to understand what you are trying to describe with the term of nature.

Are you reffering to nature (the natural world), or the nature of God?

If you are reffering to the way we describe a form of nature like human nature, divine nature, etc. then i can't claim any difference between the divine nature and nature since they are just different descriptions of the same adjective.

So i'll say this:

The term 'nature', which is an adjective in this case, not referring to the natural world of nature...

Is used to describe the character of something.

So in this case, the divine nature is used to describe God's character.

In the case of human nature, it is used to describe human nature.

In the case of 'nature', it would simply be used to describe the character of whatever it is being applied to, so 'nature' by itself, if i understand you correctly, does not have a different meaning from divine nature yet because it has not been applied to something that would differentiate it from that character.

So i would have to know in what context you are using the term 'nature' so i can give you a proper answer.

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

We believe we find our identity in Christ as the moral ideal.

This is why i am 'religious but not spiritual'

When i used to be 'spiritual but not religious' i found my identity in:

- psychedelics
- new age thought
- abstract ideas of religious truth

now my identity is found in Christ The Eternal Logos

It is no longer i who live, but Christ who lives through me.

Therefore i don't worry about my unique personality or higher self, because Christ is already the perfect example, and a friend who helps me on the journey.

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

@archie_lochie @grok what does the Bible say about Hell and why is it portrayed that there is a real Hell in Christian understanding?

Provide the Orthodox perspective on this as well please.

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

In Orthodox Christianity, we believe that our good deeds are extensions of God’s Grace (part of His Uncreated Energies)

Theosis is partaking in God’s divine nature through Christ, since we believe that Christ (The Logos/Word that became Flesh), redeemed human nature through His unique incarnation as The Godman.

We believe that since Christ resurrected, our fallen human nature is now redeemed within the Trinity as His human nature was maintained during his physical bodily resurrection.

Saint Athanasius said: “God became man so that man might become god”

In this way, our view of the Higher Self is less abstract because Christ was a physical being who we can portray and understand…

And the process of Hesychasm, which is the process of attaining Theosis, also involves the latter of Divine Ascent, which is designed to climb towards union with God.

This way we synchronise our human nature with the divine nature of God.

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

In Orthodoxy we believe Salvation is Theosis — Becoming partakers of the Divine Nature through Christ since Christ became man (fully God and fully man), therefore, redeeming human nature through the resurrection at the right hand of the Trinity, so that we may become what God is by nature through the incarnation and resurrection of Christ and the Sacraments He gave us

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

Salvation is a theological term. Specifically soteriology, which is the study of salvation.

In Orthodoxy we believe Logos Spermatikos — that God has been present in all cultures and traditions but find their fulfillment in Christ

This is why all religious traditions get some things right when related to morals and ethics

Therefore, human beings will, and have always been, judged based on their hearts with what they know at the time

We also don’t believe in faith alone as protestants do, so salvation is not dependant on faith in Christ alone, therefore, previous generations will still be fairly judged based on what they know and how they steward their hearts

We also don’t believe we can truly determine anyone’s salvation based on our limited knowledge. Only God can, because again, He alone knows our hearts and minds and how we chose to engage with spiritual laws.

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

@RaminNasibov The Passion of The Christ

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

@Stephengold003 They will be judged based on what they know.

Please make the distinction between mythology and theology

I think you might be confused about the correct terms…

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

I’d make the case that we lived like that before the fall of man (eating from the knowledge of good and evil)

Before that, from my orthodox paradigm, there was no death.

Eating from the apple introduced the fear of physical and spiritual death because of the knowledge of good and evil.

Every living creature is worried about survival though, just like human beings are. They are just more aligned with the natural order of things in order to survive (i would say it’s the way God intended)

Human beings, because of our knowledge of good and evil, along with free will, can choose to deviate from the natural order of things.

Therefore, because of our deviation, we are more occupied with earthly and material desires…

These desires might give us shelter, power, food, etc. to extend our survival.

The religious path often goes against these desires through detachment, fasting, self-control, etc. and places the focus on what exists after death (the afterlife)

I’m not saying survival is bad by the way, but, the methods we use to sustain our survival is what brings the topic of ethics, morals, and purpose into play.

The secret is to experience the afterlife on earth as a state of consciousness granted by God’s Grace, which reduces the fear of death.

This is the only subjective experience one can have to overcome the collective fear of death we all share.

We might call this: Salvation

From the Orthodox perspective we understand it as Theosis (participation in the divine nature of Christ)

These types of transcendent experiences often point us to seek objective means of maintaining it.

Those means are found in religion.

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

@Stephengold003 Okay so you are approaching this from a paradigm of social constructivism and moral relativism.

Got it…

What makes your relativistic paradigm more trustworthy than the outlines given by religion for concluding an objective morality?

[Eric Viviers @CHRISTWAVE333]

@Stephengold003 Isaiah 45:7: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

From what paradigm do you conclude nature is not good nor evil and why is it important for your worldview?