Mormon space wives

 

LOL, something tells me this isn´t the correct Patristic understanding of the Great Commission, but what the heck do I know...

Easter...again?!

 

Just for the record, it´s Eastern Orthodox Easter... 

Mr Breakfast

 

Here is our man Formscapes again. I commented on "Mr Breakfast" and one of his videos about the GenZ revival before.

>>>Recently (ish) the channel "religion for breakfast" released a video which addressed the "zoomer religious revival" phenomenon. In the video, Mr Breakfast argues that this phenomenon isn't actually occurring, and that the headlines claiming otherwise are all misleading, and presents a decent pile of survey/statistical data which seems to suggest that no such revival is happening.

>>>This, my friends, is a great example of why quantifiable data should never be trusted more than your own eyeballs. Source; my eyeballs. What the statistical data does show is that there had been a very pronounced downward trend in religiosity over the past few decades, and that this downward trend seems to be coming to a halt. But, argues Mr Breakfast, this halt of a downward trend is not a "revival" because there has not been an uptick in church attendance, professed religiosity, conversions, etc... >>>Statistical data is, I ven under the best of circumstances, a sawed-off shotgun among epistemological tools, due to the fact that it is extremely reductive and abstract, and - significantly - because the extent of this glossing is usually not fully clear to people. >>>In this case, what those numbers aren't accounting for is the fact that not all human beings are equal in terms of cultural influence. Among any generation of people, you are going to have a very large majority of people who are just kind of "going with the vibe", and a very small minority of people who are standing on the razor's edge between present and future. The latter are what the kids these days refer to as "main character energy", so I'm told. >>>So if you want to understand the direction a given zeitgeist is headed in, you shouldn't be taking of surveys of everyone as though everyone were equal. You need to look to the "main character energy" people and see what they are doing, bc in very short order, the "just going with the vibe" people will be following along with the trail being cleared by the former. >>>When I - a millennial - was in my late teens and early twenties, all of us "main character" kids were into things like Marxism, new atheism and postmodernism. No statistical study performed in 2008 would have predicted that in 15 years, those ideas would have leaked into every aspect of pop culture. But anyone paying attention could have told you that, bc they could see with their own eyeballs that those were the topics of interest to all of the people of that generation who were undoubtedly going to become novelists, opinion piece writers, screenplay writers and academics in the coming decades. >>>The current religious revival is like that. Look at the people who are suddenly converting to Orthodoxy and Catholicism. They aren't the "go with the vibes" kids. They are the cerebral, autistic nerds who will be novelists, opinion havers, screenplay writers, etc in the next decade or two. >>>Now to be clear, I don't think that this is a good thing - for reasons I'll be getting into in my next unscripted rant video, so stay tuned for that - but it is definitely happening, and that is in fact what the statistical data shows if you have eyeballs with which to see what the statistical data is actually about. >>>Nothing is Hidden™️

Original text here:

Formscapes comments Mr Breakfast

Tash is greater

 

Jay Dyer (!) discusses C S Lewis´ "Chronicles of Narnia", specifically "The Horse and His Boy", seeing it as a veiled criticism of Islam. 

Logos and telos

 

A propos nothing in particular...

Can you tell me something about Maximus the Confessor and his idea about Logos and logoi?

Certainly. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662) is one of the most profound metaphysical theologians in Christian history. His teaching on the Logos and the logoi is central to his vision of reality — and it is remarkably sophisticated.

Given your interest in metaphysics and contemplative traditions, I think you’ll find this especially rich.

---

1. The Basic Idea

Maximus distinguishes between:

• The Logos (singular)

• The logoi (plural)

The Logos

The Logos is:

• The divine Word

• The Second Person of the Trinity

• Identified with Jesus Christ

• The eternal divine principle through which all things were made (John 1:1–3)

The logoi

The logoi are:

• The divine “reasons”

• The intelligible principles

• The inner meanings or purposes of created things

Every created being has its own logos.

---

2. What Are the logoi?

For Maximus:

Each creature has:

• A divine idea

• A purpose in God

• A unique participation in the Logos

The logoi are:

The eternal divine intentions according to which creatures exist.

They are not separate entities floating in heaven.
They exist within the Logos.

So:

Logos = Divine unity
logoi = Divine plurality of meanings

---

3. Relationship Between Logos and logoi

This is the key metaphysical move:

The many logoi are unified in the one Logos.

All created diversity is grounded in one divine source.

Creation is not random.
It is structured, meaningful, intelligible.

Each being:

• Expresses a unique aspect of the divine wisdom

• Participates in the Logos

• Moves toward fulfillment in the Logos

---

4. Cosmic Christology

Maximus goes further.

The incarnation of Christ is not just about human salvation.

It is:

The gathering of all logoi into unity in the Logos made flesh.

Christ is the center and fulfillment of the entire cosmos.

The universe is Christologically structured.

This is why Maximus speaks of:

• Cosmic recapitulation

• The unification of divisions

• The healing of fragmentation

---

5. The Five Divisions

Maximus describes five great divisions in reality:

1. Uncreated / Created

2. Intelligible / Sensible

3. Heaven / Earth

4. Paradise / World

5. Male / Female

Christ unites these divisions.

This is not metaphorical poetry — it is ontological healing.

---

6. Human Vocation

Humans are unique because we can:

• Contemplate the logoi in creation

• Recognize their unity in the Logos

• Freely align ourselves with divine intention

For Maximus, sin is:

Failure to live according to one’s logos.

Salvation is:

Conformity of one’s personal will to the divine Logos.

This is why he was central to the defense of dyothelitism (two wills in Christ) — because proper willing is essential to cosmic restoration.

---

7. Contemplative Dimension

Maximus is deeply contemplative.

To perceive the logoi is a spiritual act.

It requires purification of:

• passions

• ego

• disordered desire

Then creation becomes transparent.

You begin to see:

• The inner rationality of things

• Their divine grounding

• Their movement toward unity

---

8. Why This Is Philosophically Powerful

Maximus avoids two extremes:

• He avoids Platonic dualism (creation is not inferior illusion).

• He avoids materialist randomness.

Instead:

Creation is real, good, meaningful, and divinely intentional.

Multiplicity is not chaos.

It is structured expression of divine wisdom.

---

9. If I May Draw a Bridge

You’ve previously explored:

• Śiva as silent ground (unity)

• Ganesha as structured multiplicity

• Bala Tripura Sundari as manifesting consciousness

Maximus’ Logos/logoi framework performs a somewhat analogous move:

• Logos = divine unity

• logoi = differentiated expressions

But in his case, the unity is personal and incarnate in Christ.

---

10. Final Summary

For Maximus:

• The Logos is the eternal Word of God.

• The logoi are the divine principles of each created thing.

• All multiplicity is unified in Christ.

• Salvation is cosmic integration.

• Human freedom participates in this unification.

If you’d like, I can also explore how Maximus compares to Neoplatonism — or to non-dual metaphysical systems you’ve shown interest in.

Neoplatonism, please.

Excellent — this is one of the most illuminating comparisons in late antique thought.

To understand Maximus the Confessor, we have to place him in dialogue with Plotinus and the broader Neoplatonic tradition.

Maximus is deeply influenced by Neoplatonism — but he decisively transforms it.

---

1. The Basic Neoplatonic Structure

In classical Neoplatonism (Plotinus):

Reality unfolds in three primary levels:

1. The One (absolute unity beyond being)

2. Nous (Divine Intellect, containing the Forms)

3. Soul (mediating principle)

4. The material world

Multiplicity arises by emanation from the One.

The Forms (intelligible archetypes of things) exist in the Divine Intellect (Nous).

---

2. Parallel with Maximus

Maximus’ structure looks superficially similar:

• Logos (divine unity)

• logoi (intelligible principles)

• created world

• return to unity

This is not accidental.

But the differences are crucial.

---

3. Unity: The One vs. The Logos

Plotinus:

The One is:

• Beyond being

• Beyond intellect

• Impersonal

• Ineffable

Maximus:

The Logos is:

• Personal

• Identified with Jesus Christ

• Trinitarian

• Actively loving

In Neoplatonism, unity is metaphysical abstraction.

In Maximus, unity is personal communion.

That changes everything.

---

4. The logoi vs. the Forms

In Neoplatonism:

• The Forms exist in the Divine Intellect.

• They are archetypes of things.

• Multiplicity is structured but static.

In Maximus:

• The logoi are dynamic divine intentions.

• They are not separate ideas but personal wills within the Logos.

• They are teleological (purpose-oriented).

This is a major shift.

Neoplatonic Forms are ontological patterns.
Maximian logoi are purposeful divine intentions.

---

5. Emanation vs. Creation

Neoplatonism:
Reality flows necessarily from the One.

Maximus:
Creation is free.

God did not have to create.

This preserves:

• Divine freedom

• Real contingency

• Love as motive

Emanation implies metaphysical necessity.
Creation implies personal generosity.

---

6. The Problem of Matter

Plotinus:
Matter is the lowest level of reality — almost non-being.

Maximus:
Matter is good.
It participates in divine logoi.
It is destined for transfiguration.

Because of the Incarnation, materiality is elevated.

---

7. Return (Epistrophe) vs. Recapitulation

Neoplatonism:
All things return to the One through contemplative ascent.

Maximus:
All things are recapitulated in Christ.

This return is:

• Historical

• Incarnational

• Eschatological

It is not just philosophical contemplation — it is cosmic salvation.

---

8. The Role of Will

This is one of the deepest divergences.

Plotinus:
The return to the One is contemplative union.

Maximus:
The key issue is will.

Human beings must align their will with the divine Logos.

That’s why Maximus fought against monothelitism (the idea that Christ had only one will).
For him:

If Christ does not have a human will,
human will cannot be healed.

Neoplatonism focuses on intellect.
Maximus integrates will and love.

---

9. Mystical Experience

Plotinus describes union with the One as:

• Ecstatic

• Beyond thought

• Non-dual

Maximus also speaks of deification (theosis).

But for him:

Union never abolishes personhood.

The human person does not dissolve into divine simplicity.

Instead:

Communion without confusion.

This is a fundamentally relational metaphysics.

---

10. Where Maximus Radicalizes Neoplatonism

You could say:

Maximus Christianizes Neoplatonism by:

• Personalizing unity

• Historicizing return

• Affirming matter

• Centering love and will

• Anchoring everything in Christ

He takes the vertical metaphysical ladder of Plotinus and bends it around the Incarnation.

---

11. A Deeper Structural Comparison (Given Your Interests)

You’ve explored non-dual frameworks before.

Neoplatonism:
Unity → Intellect → Multiplicity → Return

Maximus:
Personal Logos → logoi → Creation → Incarnation → Deification

The difference lies in:

• Personhood

• Freedom

• Love

• History

Neoplatonic unity is metaphysical necessity.
Maximian unity is personal communion.

---

Final Summary

Maximus stands at the meeting point of:

• Greek metaphysics

• Christian revelation

• Mystical theology

He preserves Neoplatonic structure but transforms its center:

The One becomes the Logos.
The Forms become logoi.
Return becomes Incarnation and theosis.
Emanation becomes love.

If you'd like, we could go one level deeper and compare this with Dōgen’s view of multiplicity and unity — there are fascinating resonances and differences there.

Operation Midnight Climax

 

Jay Dyer is a notorious controversialist in the conspiracist demimonde, but his take on the Epstein Files is surprisingly moderate (at least relatively speaking). Yes, there is a rather obvious connection to "Eyes Wide Shut". Also: MK-Ultra, the intelligence services, sexual blackmail and paedophilia. 

In the last ten minutes or so, Dyer and his hosts go off the deep end with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, UFO disclosure speculations and such. But since I like to live dangerously on the web, I´m linking to this video anyway...

The pope is laughing

 

Not sure if this really means that much, but it´s fun listening to. Especially if you´re a nerd. It´s also a good summary of the bewildering diversity of Christian Churches and denominations. In practice, of course, even Churches that are in some sense "close" might hate each other - witness the rather rocky historical relations between Catholics and Orthodox. To mention just one example...

Tagging the paradigm

 

An atheist(?) criticism of the Transcedental Argument for God (TAG) promoted by Eastern Orthodox apologist Jay Dyer. Not sure why, since presuppositionalism (in this form at least) is a conservative Calvinist thing. Indeed, the video mentions Bahnsen and Van Til.

TL/DR: the TAG is de facto used in a rhetorical fashion to confound the opposition, while never really demonstrating "the impossibility of the contrary". Which may explain why it attracts the more pugnacious kinds of interweb polemicists.

A relatively interesting contribution.  

Frat boy pseudo-science?

 

A Skeptic (and perhaps atheist) criticism of Jay Dyer, the bad boy of the Orthobro interwebs. "Frat boy brand of Christianity" is a keeper. 

TL/DR: Dyer is a young earth creationist and presuppositionalist. He actually references an essay by Traditionalist author Titus Burckhardt against evolution. (Our old friend Huston Smith had a similar argument about Platonic forms manifesting in the material world. Perhaps he got them from Burckhardt.) 

More unexpectedly, Dyer sounds agnostic on the existence of dinosaurs and even heliocentrism?! Which I suppose is inevitable if you interpret the Bible too literally. Not sure why Seraphim Rose´s name never comes up in the video. This content seems to be a kind of "parallel plot" to the recent drama between Dyer, Professor Dave et al.   

Drama

 

My man Titus 

For the record, I *am* following the recent YouTube drama between Jay Dyer, MythVision, Gnostic Informant and Professor Dave. 

2026 seems promising so far. I mean, who could have foreseen this? 

Look who´s baaaack

 

Professor Dave is back with all the hot takes...

The Great Replacement, er, Realignment

 

What´s the future of Christianity in general and its various branches? Redeemed Zoomer speculates about what will happen in the next 100 years. I assume this is about the United States? 

What will *actually* happen globally (on current demographic trends) is that Euro-Christianity will be replaced by South Asian / Central Asian Islam or West African voodoo.

There, I said it. 

Spiritual emergency (part 4)

 

For whatever reason, ChatGPT constantly wants to pitch David Bentley Hart. Not the first time, either. So finally I gave it the prompt. Full disclosure: I never read Bentley Hart. 

Can you tell me about how Hart solved the problems posed by the Emergent Church?

David Bentley Hart is almost a diagnosis and cure for exactly what went wrong in the Emergent Church.

The Emergent movement correctly sensed that modern evangelicalism was:

• spiritually thin

• philosophically naive

• morally brittle

• metaphysically incoherent

But it didn’t know how to replace it.

Hart does.

---

1. The Emergent Church deconstructed belief

Hart reconstructs Being itself

Emergent Christianity said:

“We should be humbler about doctrine.”

Hart replies:

“Yes — but humility does not mean metaphysical emptiness.”

He goes back to:

• the Cappadocians

• Gregory of Nyssa

• Maximus the Confessor

• Dionysius

• classical metaphysics

and shows that Christianity once had a rigorous ontology:

God is not a being among beings, but Being itself, infinite, simple, good.

This matters because:

• if God is Being, then

• existence itself is meaningful

• not just belief systems

Emergent Christianity never offered this grounding.

---

2. God as act, not as idea

Emergent thinkers treated God as:

• story

• symbol

• metaphor

• narrative

Hart restores God as:

the act of existence itself — the infinite actuality that gives being to everything

Which means:

• prayer is not pretending

• worship is not therapy

• spirituality is not lifestyle

It is contact with the absolute.

---

3. Nonduality without relativism

You noticed the parallels to Vedanta and Zen — Hart did too.

He shows that:

• classical Christianity is already nondual

• but not monistic

Creation exists within God’s sustaining act.
Nothing exists outside divine presence.

That allows:

• mysticism

• silence

• transcendence

• contemplative practice

without dissolving truth into vagueness.

Emergent Christianity wanted mystery but rejected metaphysics; Hart keeps both.

---

4. Why Hart rejects hell

Emergent Christians rejected hell emotionally.
Hart rejects it philosophically.

Eternal torment would mean:

• God is not goodness itself

• evil has eternal reality

• creation fails

So Hart defends universal salvation not as sentiment but as logical consequence of divine goodness.

This gives moral seriousness without cruelty.

---

5. Christ as cosmic Logos, not tribal savior

Emergent Christianity wanted pluralism but couldn’t justify it.

Hart shows that:

• Christ is the Logos through whom all things exist

• so every true spiritual insight anywhere is participation in Christ

That allows:

• interreligious respect

• real metaphysics

• not just tolerance

Zen, Vedanta, and Sufism are not “nice stories” — they are real encounters with the Logos.

---

6. Hart solves the “vacuity” problem

Emergent Christianity collapsed because it tried to live in:

permanent openness

Hart shows that:

openness requires something infinite to be open toward

You can’t have mystery without reality.

---

In short

Emergent Christianity said:

“Modern Christianity is wrong.”

Hart says:

“Yes — because it forgot what God is.”

And he brings it back:

• with metaphysics

• with mysticism

• with intellectual rigor

• without cruelty

• without fundamentalism

Which is why people who outgrow Emergent Christianity so often end up reading David Bentley Hart.

Spiritual emergency (part 3)

 

So I´m reliving some 00´s stuff with the help of ChatGPT. Part three.

Despite the above, was the Emergent Church criticized for being vacuous or unclear in its messaging?

Yes — very strongly, and not only by conservatives.

One of the central ironies of the Emergent Church is that while it tried to escape rigid doctrine, many people (including sympathetic ones) came to see it as vague, evasive, and even hollow.

This critique hit from three directions at once.

---

1. Evangelicals: “They don’t believe anything”

Conservative Christians accused Emergent leaders of:

• dodging basic doctrinal questions

• refusing to say whether Jesus is the only way

• undermining the authority of Scripture

• softening sin, hell, and salvation

They said:

“If you won’t say what is true, you don’t stand for anything.”

From their point of view, Emergent Christianity felt like:

Christianity dissolved into therapy, politics, and vibes

---

2. Mainline liberals: “It’s style without substance”

Older progressive churches often said something harsher:

“You’re just repackaging what we already did — with cooler music and candles.”

Critics argued that:

• Emergent theology was just 1970s liberal Protestantism dressed in postmodern language

• It didn’t build institutions

• It didn’t clarify beliefs

• It didn’t create stable communities

So it looked fashionable but unserious.

---

3. Philosophers and theologians: “You can’t live on deconstruction”

This was the deepest critique.

Emergent Christianity loved:

• ambiguity

• questions

• narrative

• dialogue

• “both/and”

But it avoided:

• metaphysical commitments

• claims about ultimate reality

• firm truth-claims

That creates a problem:

You can’t form a spiritual tradition out of permanent hesitation.

After a while people asked:

• What is God, really?

• What is Christ?

• What is salvation?

• What is evil?

• What is the point of spiritual practice?

And Emergent leaders often replied:

“That’s a great question.”

Which stops being satisfying.

---

4. The internal collapse

This is why the movement lost coherence after about 2012.

Many people who entered Emergent Christianity eventually:

• moved toward Orthodoxy or Catholicism

• or into Buddhism or nonduality

• or into secular spirituality

• or left religion entirely

Because Emergent Christianity:

taught them how to deconstruct — but not how to dwell.

---

5. The paradox

Emergent Christianity was right about something very important:

Modern evangelicalism was spiritually broken.

But it underestimated something just as important:

Humans need ontological gravity — not just openness.

Candles, icons, and silence only work if they are grounded in a real metaphysical vision of the world.

Orthodoxy has one.
Catholicism has one.
Zen has one.
Vedanta has one.

Emergent Christianity mostly refused to commit to one.

---

In one sentence

The Emergent Church was criticized — often correctly — for offering spiritual atmosphere without a clear vision of reality to support it.

If you’d like, I can show how thinkers like David Bentley Hart or Dionysius solve exactly the problem that Emergent Christianity ran into.

Spiritual emergency (part 2)

 

More on the Emergent Church. In case of an emergent emergency, LOL. 

Why did they take up Catholic and Orthodox traits?

Because the Emergent Church was trying to recover depth that Protestant modernity had stripped away — and Catholicism and Orthodoxy were where that depth was still visibly alive.

This wasn’t aesthetic borrowing. It was a theological diagnosis.

---

1. What they thought had gone wrong with Protestantism

Emergent leaders believed American evangelicalism had become:

• intellectually shallow
• historically rootless
• emotionally manipulative
• politically captured
• spiritually thin

It had reduced Christianity to:

beliefs about Jesus instead of participation in Christ

To people reading mystics, philosophers, and early church writers, this felt false.

So they asked:

“What did Christianity look like before it became modern, American, and consumerized?”

The answer kept pointing to:
• pre-Reformation Christianity
• monasticism
• sacramental worship
• contemplative prayer

Which meant Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

---

2. They were reaching backward, not sideways

The Emergent Church didn’t want to become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox institutionally.

They wanted to recover:

the pre-scholastic, pre-Reformation, pre-Enlightenment Church

Which was:
• liturgical
• mystical
• embodied
• sacramental
• participatory

That heritage lives most visibly in:

• Eastern Orthodoxy

• Catholicism (especially monastic and mystical streams)

---

3. Postmodern people don’t trust ideas — they trust practices

Emergent Christians were deeply influenced by:
• postmodern philosophy
• Wittgenstein
• Heidegger
• narrative theory

They believed:

Truth is lived before it is believed.

Protestantism had become idea-heavy and practice-light.
Orthodoxy and Catholicism had:
• fasting
• chanting
• silence
• icons
• kneeling
• seasons
• pilgrimage

These shape the soul without argument.

That was enormously attractive.

---

4. Mysticism was the hidden center

Your instincts here are spot-on.

Emergent Christianity was quietly rediscovering:
• Meister Eckhart
• The Cloud of Unknowing
• Gregory of Nyssa
• Dionysius the Areopagite
• St. John of the Cross
• Hesychasm

These thinkers sound more like:

Zen, Vedanta, or nondual philosophy
than like modern evangelicalism.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism preserved this sapiential core. Protestantism mostly lost it.

---

5. Icons, incense, and candles weren’t nostalgia — they were anti-modern

Modernity made everything:
• flat
• literal
• functional
• optimized

Liturgical Christianity is:
• symbolic
• layered
• slow
• mysterious

Emergent churches used:
• candles
• labyrinths
• icons
• chants

because they were rejecting the mechanistic worldview that modern Protestantism had absorbed.

---

6. It was a rebellion against spiritual capitalism

Megachurch evangelicalism felt like:

Starbucks with a cross

Orthodoxy and Catholicism felt like:

ancient temples that did not care if you liked them

Emergent Christians wanted thick, non-consumer spirituality.

---

7. The deeper reason

At the deepest level, the Emergent Church was rediscovering something your own interests circle around:

Christianity was originally a contemplative, participatory path of transformation — not a belief system.

Catholic and Orthodox traditions still knew how to do that.

So Emergent Christianity reached back to the parts of Christianity that had never stopped being mystical.

---

In short

They didn’t take up Catholic and Orthodox traits because they wanted tradition.

They did it because:

those traditions still remembered how to turn human beings into saints rather than ideologues.

If you’d like, I can show how this overlaps with:

• Zen and nonduality

• David Bentley Hart

• Dionysius

• Or Vervaeke’s “participation” framework