David Patrick Harry Completely Misrepresents Eastern Orthodoxy and Christianity

I have been listening to David Patrick Harry, aka Church of the Eternal Logos, for a few years now and I am getting sick and tired of this guy. His backstory is that he used to be a psychonaut tripping balls and peering into the fabric of the universe. It's the same old psychedelic nonsense one can get from Ken Kesey or Timothy Leary or any other acid head. However in David's case he followed the White Rabbit into Eastern Orthodoxy.

Why did he became Eastern Orthodox? Did Jesus convict him of his sins? Did he feel the need to repent and put his faith in the blood of Christ which was shed for our sins? No. To put it bluntly he became Eastern Orthodox not because of his existential need for Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins, he became Eastern Orthodox because Eastern Orthodoxy is basically one long sober acid trip.

You can listen to him rant here:

1:05:32 Okay, the next one that I want the attribute of psychedelic worldview that I think is actually really useful and potentially another bridge into orthodoxy is the sacred sacred structures. Things like pi, phi, fibonacci, sacred geometry, cymatics, fractals. I loved this stuff when I was interested into psychedelics and I, again I had a big psychedelic channel, made a lot of graphics for that stuff and this was a huge turn on for me when I found Orthodoxy was that I didn't have to give up any of this stuff. I didn't have to give up all the sacred geometry. I didn't have to give up, uh, sacred space, sacred architecture, sacred symbols. I didn't have to give up archetypes. Because it's all rooted in the Logos. You see, Platonic solids themselves, Platonic solids for Plato, again, was rooted in the in the ideal. It was part of, it was in the Logos. The psychedelics though have no real metaphysical frame why, how, where do the fractals come from? Where is the sacred geometry? How do those exist and why are they predominant and existing in reality? It's, it's difficult for them to answer that and you're going to get different answers based on different people coming from different traditions. And so I think it's a real major appeal for us Orthodox bridging into the New Age that hey you don't have to give up your the idea that fractals are somehow approaching divinity. Right? That fractals are are insinuating that there is sort of layers of repeatability of pattern in reality. Orthodoxy teaches that. 

That's why Christ taught in parables, right? Because at the metaphoric level through the story he's actually telling you a truth that resonates on all levels of reality. At the abstract, at the theological, at the ethical, at the metaphorical, at the archetypal all these levels of reality he's teaching you through the parables. That's what the Logos, that's what the Word of God did to for people. And so you don't have to give up. In fact what you do is you get to embrace it even more. You get to embrace it even more because now you have a philosophical, a theological foundation for why fractals and sacred structures and Platonic solids and pi, phi well you have an understanding for why they exist and why they're useful and why we actually should build things in those patterns.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZW6XB6TSVA

What a solid gold load of crap. Jesus taught in parables because he was telling us truths that resonate on all levels of reality? No! He taught in obscure parables publicly while in private he explained their meaning to his disciples because he was hiding his teaching from the masses. 

Mark 4:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

It's interesting how David says psychonauts converting to Orthodoxy don't have to give up their woo-woo because in Orthodoxy you can ground it in the Logos who is Jesus Christ. So where in the scriptures does Jesus or Paul or Moses talk about Platonic solids or fractals? They don't!  They do talk a lot about sin and turning from sin by trusting in Jesus Christ. But you won't hear a word about that from David Patrick Harry or the rest of the Orthobros.

Our Life in Christ is not a sober acid or shroom trip. Not even according to Eastern Orthodoxy. Our Life in Christ is a lifelong journey of purifying our hearts and minds in a continual act of metanoia so that we might be united to Him. There is no room for fractals or Platonic Solids or any of that woo-woo. Not even St. Justin would agree with David Patrick Harry and the Church of the Eternal Logos. 

St. Augustine on Theosis or Divnization

I have not published on this blog in quite a while which is a shame because I have been reading so much and learning even more. Therefore I am going to start publishing quotes of interest I come across while reading. At the moment I am reading  St. Augustine's "On the Psalms" which is volume 8 in the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers series.  In his exposition of Psalm 53 St. Augustine briefly touches on the doctrine of theosis or divinization. This is the doctrine that our salvation consists in us becoming partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) and sharing in the uncreated glory which the Father gave to the Son (John 17:22). Such a doctrine of soteriology is completely at odds with the forensic justification of legal declaration of non-guilt and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ which is the basis of the Protestant doctrine of salvation. The righteousness imputed to us in the Protestant scheme is the created righteousness of Christ's human merits and not his own essential righteousness. Thus in Protestantism one is not really partaking of the divine nature or really even united to Christ.

5. What is that which looking forth we acknowledge? What is that which looking forth God acknowledges? What (because here He gives it) does He acknowledge? Hear what it is; that All have gone aside, together useless they have become: there is not one that does good, there is not so much as one. What then is that other question, but the same whereof a little before I have made mention? If, There is not one that does good, is not so much as one, no one remains to groan amid evil men. Stay, says the Lord, do not hastily give judgment. I have given to men to do well; but of Me, He says, not of themselves: for of themselves evil they are: sons of men they are, when they do evil; when well, My sons. For this thing God does, out of sons of men He makes sons of God: because out of Son of God He has made Son of Man. See what this participation is: there has been promised to us a participation of Divinity: He lies that has promised, if He is not first made partaker of mortality. For the Son of God has been made partaker of mortality, in order that mortal man may be made partaker of divinity. He that has promised that His good is to be shared with you, first with you has shared your evil: He that to you has promised divinity, shows in you love. Therefore take away that men are sons of God, there remains that they are sons of men: There is none that does good, is not so much as one.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801053.htm