No I really don't think you do, but let's just stick with this for now.
As mentioned early in our exchange, if knowledge is received as you have said it is, without reasoning, work or learning, and has no special status,
Let's just go with this for now.
Learning is essentially a change of mind. It is work. Reasoning is a type of learning that is also work. Presumably reasoning is an honest type of learning that takes care to maintain consistency, which is about as close to honesty as faith-based creatures can get.
Mind you, faith-based creatures are made in the darkness of dishonesty, and by their nature are dishonest, having abrogated responsibility for their appearnce in physical form.
If reasoning is honest, it can lead the faith-based creature back to knowledge, from whence it came, before abandoning knowledge for faith.
If religion was honest, then religion and reason would be the same thing: the careful discernment between real and unreal, between knowledge and faith.
I don't see your brand of "reason" any more honest than bigots, who have given the term "religion" a bad reputation.
This is because you steadfastly maintain inconsistency (dishonesty) to serve your own faith-based agenda.
So you take what I say and twist it around, breaking it's consistency, and changing its meaning, if you could.
You've been called out for this, and now, you are doing it again, by misrepresenting what I've said about learning and reasoning.
Faith based creatures, christians and atheists alike, MUST change their minds about reality, if ever they would return to a state of knowledge. The change involves a subtraction of what the "knowledge of faith" (an oxymoron) has added. This is why meditation, a subtraction of active thinking, functions to change one's mind, to cause learning, and to cause reason. However, just to be willing to meditate, understanding it's function, requires some change of mind, as the subtraction of thought is not natural for any faith-based creature.
Despite changing, learning, reasoning and meditation, one must still INVITE knowledge to come and replace the flimsy structures that even the best reasoning can build. Arguably, reasoning is a prelude to invitation. Once knowledge arrives, you will be able to see just how any further reasoning is not necessary. Reasoning is not natural to the state of knowledge. At best, reasoning functions as a rope that can be climbed out of a deep well of faith. Once you are on top, you don't need the rope anymore.
then your professed knowledge of Christ, can be in reality no more true or correct , grounded or reliable than another person's knowledge of No Christ.
Once you know something, you don't need to compare your knowledge to what other, more or less honest philosophers think or thought. The competition is for you, the dishonest, to compete with, marshaling all your powers of sophistry. Having had the experience, you are hard pressed to re-frame it according to your own dictats.
No Christ = No Reality...No Knowledge. No knowledge yields the state of faith, a fundamentally dishonest state of mind. So it is an oxymoron, and an inconsistent style of reasoning (dishonest), to force opposing concepts into the same fruit (knowledge and faith forced together), just as it is dishonest to force "good and evil" (forced together) to express itself as the fruit of one tree.
It is this kind of inconsistency, this kind of dishonesty, that defines a world based on faith.
There is no knowledge of "No Christ", just as there is no knowledge of "good and evil", as if it were one thing, one tree, or one fruit.
No amount of pseudo-philosophizing ,
This appears to be what you are doing. Fake philosophy. Faking it till you make it? If you could be known by your fruit, that would be the dishonest inconsistency of mixing opposing states of mind into one thing, such as, the "knowledge of No Christ", which is the same as saying something stupid like, "the knowledge of no knowledge", or "the knowledge of faith".
Any philosopher worth his salt could tell you faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive states of mind. You are as unwilling as the gone-astray christian community, in admitting the impossibility of mixing the two.
circular argument or word salad buffets you can create will alter that.
In brief, none of your circular arguments, which bring knowledge and faith together as if they were the same thing, will improve your word salads, such as "the knowledge of No Christ".
Christ and reality are the same thing. Faith re-defines reality according to it's own dark agenda.
you haven't moved out of the land of blind religious faith.
There's that word salad again: "religious faith". You have no idea what religion is any more you have an idea what reason is. Either religion is an honest process that discerns the difference between faith and knowledge, or it is a dishonest process. It merely has the reputation of being dishonest, given a long history of existential magicians. You are not exempt from that crowd, atheists themselves being existential magicians just as much as christians. All faith is blind to knowledge. Bigoted faith, driven further into the darkness by dishonesty is the blindest of all.
Calling your religious faith, knowledge, just doesn't cut it.
Calling your dishonest brand of reasoning *not religion* (assuming religion is synonymous with dishonest, bigoted agendas), or *not faith* does not get a free pass when put side by side with honest, consistent, philosophy. I'm not calling my philosophy knowledge. It serves as an excellent jumping off point to invite knowledge. I've had a taste of knowledge that you know nothing about.
