Religion, transcendence, and dogmatic exclusion

[onesteptwostep]

@onesteptwostep I've travelled to the Andes in Peru a few times. What's obvious from being there is that they are very deeply Catholic. At the same time, they've synthesised that with the spirituality of the Incan culture that existed prior to the Spanish conquest. Their Christianity is a synthesis of the colonial culture with their original culture. At the same time, it's really obvious that the Catholics there are deeply passionate about their faith and are just as much Christian as any Western Orthodox.

Someone can likewise be a Gnostic and a Christian. It's not an insult, spiritual culture is a living thing that evolves and adapts with the times. Did Protestantism always exist? Or Catholicism? Or Mormonism? Christianity now is not the same thing it was 2000 years ago and it's interpreted in a multiplicity of ways. Likewise, there are many spiritual cultures that once existed and are extinct to the world now. I personally see no reason to assume the spiritual cultures of today will last forever either and that they won't be replaced by other spiritual cultures.

What's most important to spirituality, in my view, is that there exists an authentic living communion with the sacred. Much more powerfully so when that communion is shared by a community. That aspect of spirituality appears to me timeless regardless of the culture through which that relationship is facilitated. To me, that co-creative living relationship should drive the form that communion takes and the culture it emerges through, which people codify as dogmas. When communion becomes dictated by the dogmas and the sacred cannot be felt in them anymore that's a good sign that that communion is dead and needs revitalising.

I would agree that this communion involves Faith as a fundamental aspect. Where I differ is that I see Faith as leading to this living relationship with the sacred which also leads to dialogue, experience and knowing of the sacred, that grows in its dimensions, depths, and transformations, as one delves deeper into it. As long as the intellect doesn't overshadow other aspects it can be a servant in this process; the mind has many unique gifts to surrender to love in service.

I have been Christian and while I do think I still had a communion then it's not the same as it is now. I've found dogma to be a consistent barrier to this relationship, also with my involvement in other forms of spirituality like Western esotericism or South American shamanism, as then I'm just relying on the words & rituals of others without having a living relationship with what those words & rituals are pointing to. Without that living relationship spirituality is just a dead and empty husk, someone else's words on paper. Sometimes prioritising my relationship to the sacred has meant abandoning dogmas in order to follow what that has led me to, and generally it's been closer to that than what I had before.

In retrospect, being a part of and leaving Christianity was a necessary thing for me to grow on my own spiritual path. From a perennialist lens, I'm able to appreciate that as me leaving Christianity doesn't mean my spiritual path has come to an end, my relationship to it has simply transformed into a different form. Also from a perennialist lens, I'm simultaneously able to respect that others might be led to Christianity and that that might be a good thing for them and something which facilitates a communion with the sacred for them. My Mum is Christian, for example, and I know her conversion helped her tremendously in overcoming the trauma from her abusive upbringing and forgiving her family. So I at the very least try to be respectful of Christianity and other positions Grey Man describes as dogmatic exclusivist as I recognise them as valid paths in their own right.

My issue with dogmatism is that it's forced to exclude any other possibility as a threat to its existence. It's not able to explore any of the possibilities I might point to without calling it 'heresy' or an 'insult.' This shuts down the processes of creativity, discovery and exploration, which is just as much a part of spirituality as something to be explored, discovered, lived. If someone doesn't resonate with the dogma it gives them no choice but to adopt it, sometimes forcefully as history would show, as the only option even if it feels inauthentic to them. It's not possible to dialogue with dogmatism as it's not able to recognise other choices as valid. Basically there's no room for me to have a conversation with dogmatism so generally I should know better and not write posts like these. I generally try to restrain myself and just observe dogmatism from a distance.

While I agree, gnosticism is a phenomena that the Church fought against in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries and onward. In today's secularized marketplace of religious ideas, they seem to allow for some agency unto oneself, which is wholly apart from the ministry of Christ. Talking about sacredness as if it's a quality apart from Jesus is simply just paganism. Spiritually outside Christ is just the self in a vacuum. Any religious or spiritual system that forgoes Christ and puts the self in the center is pagan. That is what the difference between Christianity and all the other indigenous religions around the world is. Sacredness is a pagan word anyway. What is 'sacred' is righteousness, a sense of justice, a sense of peace, a sense of advancement towards the kingdom of God. Pagan religions only provide short relief for the capitalistic lifestyle we participate ourselves in- Christianity is beyond economic and political systems. "Gnosticism", and other New Age or Aquarian cults place secularism at the center, to placate the self for the life of modernity. And that is what the true opium of the masses is.

I do respect others who have their own lifestyle, but when it comes to the theology or spirituality of those systems, they are not universal but are particulars, not about forming a community of believers. If you take a look at many of the cults and spiritual trends, many have gone off into being seditious organizations that prey on the lost, as they have for centuries in the Mediterranean and elsewhere.

Gnosticism is literally salvation through knowledge. That is not what Christianity teaches, and you know that yourself.

 

[The Grey Man]

You are saying what is said and written in a praticular religion should not be taken with a literal interpretation, but more a principled interpretation as far as the principle represents a dogma that may or may not be literally true as far as its literal dogma represents itself, but there is still a relative truth about the dogma that may or may not be known relatively. Would you say this would be an accurate way of saying it?

When Jesus says to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, he is in a sense really talking about Caesar, but in a more profound sense, he's talking about temporal power as opposed to divine law, even though he never says so explicitly. The literal sense is irrelevant to us since Caesar is dead and the Roman Empire no longer exists, but the allegorical sense is no less relevant now than it was two millennia ago. What is said by the founder of a religion is always coloured by the particularities of its cultural milieu, but this should not blind us to the universality of what it expresses.

 

[Old Things]

You are saying what is said and written in a praticular religion should not be taken with a literal interpretation, but more a principled interpretation as far as the principle represents a dogma that may or may not be literally true as far as its literal dogma represents itself, but there is still a relative truth about the dogma that may or may not be known relatively. Would you say this would be an accurate way of saying it?

When Jesus says to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, he is in a sense really talking about Caesar, but in a more profound sense, he's talking about temporal power as opposed to divine law, even though he never says so explicitly. The literal sense is irrelevant to us since Caesar is dead and the Roman Empire no longer exists, but the allegorical sense is no less relevant now than it was two millennia ago. What is said by the founder of a religion is always coloured by the particularities of its cultural milieu, but this should not blind us to the universality of what it expresses.

Yes, that is more or less what I was trying to say. I'll provide a few comments and you can respond to them if you want, but of course, it's up to you if you think I am being too simple or something like that.

1. It seems that what you are doing by looking at the text is a certain kind of exegesis. Where I can potentially see problems with your method, is that you are not doing your exegesis based on what the author of said book is trying to get across, but instead favoring the principles coming out of said book.

2. It also seems you are in a sense robing Jesus of his historical context as to what the point is for us today. For example, while the empire of Rome does not exist today, very much like that time, people still are run by governments where people still have to pay taxes. The lesson here from Jesus is to be good citizens of the government that you live in, and as such, followers of Christ should pay their taxes to the government. I don't know if that would be the same lesson you are getting out of it or not. In any case, where I have seemingly gone one step away from the context in view of being a good citizen, you seem to have gone farther than I have with the principle of the verse(s).

3. I might also say, along with the above, a historical context of what was going on at the time is very important to get the full gist of what Jesus was saying. For example, when Jesus said this, essentially what was going on is that some of the Roman citizens were teaming up with some of the Pharisees to force Jesus to give an answer that would cause a disturbance in one of the companies parties. So if that is to be understood, then there would be a lesson apart from the one you gave based on how to answer people when they are trying to paint you in a corner. This would be a practical way on how to answer people from the PoV on what would be the wise thing to do given someone is in a similar situation as Jesus was in. And I think this would be more of a dogmatic principle rather than a general one but your mileage may vary.

 

[The Grey Man]

@Old Things Many interpretations are possible, some more laden with historical data than others. My point is that if we reduce religious doctrine entirely to its literal meaning, which always pertains to the particular context of its origination, we will be left with no general principles to apply to our present situation. In particular, if we take literally Christ's saying that he alone is the way, this discredits similar doctrines of other religions, which again brings us to the problem of this thread. Since I'm not an illiterate serf for whom religions other than Christianity might as well not exist, I naturally wonder how such contradictions can be reconciled, if at all. The demonstration of isomorphisms between different dogmatic systems by synthetic interpretation seems to me to be the most plausible way of doing this.

 

[Puffy]

@onesteptwostep A lot of modern and 'new age' interest in gnosticism stems from the renaissance period, when a lot of the writings of the gnostics, hermeticists, neo-platonists and other classical theology began to be unearthed and studied. There have been a lot of people since then who identified as Christian and have an intense interest in those writings and see no contradiction between them.

There are plenty of organisations and writers in Western esotericism, like the Order of the Rosy Cross for example, that identify as Christian.

My point in raising Andean culture is that these mutations & evolutions in spiritual culture happen and can't be avoided. Like the split into Protestantism that happened with Martin Luther. Today there are many native Americans & indigenous Mexicans who eat the entheogen Peyote during ceremonies devoted to prayer to Christ. I don't really see how you or me would be in a position to proclaim one baptised self-proclaimed Christian as Christian and another as not?

I don't necessarily object to the pagan label though I don't agree with your definition of it: "Spiritually outside Christ is just the self in a vacuum." It feels pretty presumptuous to say of all other cultures outside Christianity that they proclaim to put the self at the centre? Is that really what all other cultures are saying?

e.g. the intention of my post was to prioritise one's relationship to the sacred over dogma. By the sacred I mean the transcendent. i.e. what some call God, what some call Allah, what some call Christ, what some call Great Spirit. I can't see anywhere where I mentioned putting the self at the centre?

"Christ is the way"
"Christ is a way"

I understand from your perspective that you're only able to recognise Christ as the way. I'm able to empathise with why someone might choose that and respect that. Simultaneously I'm not able to see Christianity as the only way for some of the reasons I've already described. I'm unsure how to bridge this one so seems like an agree to disagree thing?

 

[The Grey Man]

A lot of modern and 'new age' interest in gnosticism stems from the renaissance period, when a lot of the writings of the gnostics, hermeticists, neo-platonists and other classical theology began to be unearthed and studied. There have been a lot of people since then who identified as Christian and have an intense interest in those writings and see no contradiction between them.

The existence of the Graecized Roman Empire or 'Byzantine' Empire continues to be an inconvenient truth for certain historians, both anti-Christian ideologues who like to think that the Romans were all prudent-minded pluralists who didn't fall for the great scam that is monotheism and Christians who would prefer to imagine Greek Christianity as a marginal phenomenon that has contributed little to Western Civilization. Greek literature is supposed to have been 'discovered' in the 15th century, either ruining us or rescuing us from the deplorable ignorance of the "medieval" period (depending on the historian's bias), as if it had been buried under a rock for a thousand years, whereas it had in the meantime been interacting with Christian philosophy in Constantinople.

 

[Puffy]

@onesteptwostep I've travelled to the Andes in Peru a few times. What's obvious from being there is that they are very deeply Catholic. At the same time, they've synthesised that with the spirituality of the Incan culture that existed prior to the Spanish conquest. Their Christianity is a synthesis of the colonial culture with their original culture. At the same time, it's really obvious that the Catholics there are deeply passionate about their faith and are just as much Christian as any Western Orthodox.

Someone can likewise be a Gnostic and a Christian. It's not an insult, spiritual culture is a living thing that evolves and adapts with the times. Did Protestantism always exist? Or Catholicism? Or Mormonism? Christianity now is not the same thing it was 2000 years ago and it's interpreted in a multiplicity of ways. Likewise, there are many spiritual cultures that once existed and are extinct to the world now. I personally see no reason to assume the spiritual cultures of today will last forever either and that they won't be replaced by other spiritual cultures.

What's most important to spirituality, in my view, is that there exists an authentic living communion with the sacred. Much more powerfully so when that communion is shared by a community. That aspect of spirituality appears to me timeless regardless of the culture through which that relationship is facilitated. To me, that co-creative living relationship should drive the form that communion takes and the culture it emerges through, which people codify as dogmas. When communion becomes dictated by the dogmas and the sacred cannot be felt in them anymore that's a good sign that that communion is dead and needs revitalising.

I would agree that this communion involves Faith as a fundamental aspect. Where I differ is that I see Faith as leading to this living relationship with the sacred which also leads to dialogue, experience and knowing of the sacred, that grows in its dimensions, depths, and transformations, as one delves deeper into it. As long as the intellect doesn't overshadow other aspects it can be a servant in this process; the mind has many unique gifts to surrender to love in service.

I have been Christian and while I do think I still had a communion then it's not the same as it is now. I've found dogma to be a consistent barrier to this relationship, also with my involvement in other forms of spirituality like Western esotericism or South American shamanism, as then I'm just relying on the words & rituals of others without having a living relationship with what those words & rituals are pointing to. Without that living relationship spirituality is just a dead and empty husk, someone else's words on paper. Sometimes prioritising my relationship to the sacred has meant abandoning dogmas in order to follow what that has led me to, and generally it's been closer to that than what I had before.

In retrospect, being a part of and leaving Christianity was a necessary thing for me to grow on my own spiritual path. From a perennialist lens, I'm able to appreciate that as me leaving Christianity doesn't mean my spiritual path has come to an end, my relationship to it has simply transformed into a different form. Also from a perennialist lens, I'm simultaneously able to respect that others might be led to Christianity and that that might be a good thing for them and something which facilitates a communion with the sacred for them. My Mum is Christian, for example, and I know her conversion helped her tremendously in overcoming the trauma from her abusive upbringing and forgiving her family. So I at the very least try to be respectful of Christianity and other positions Grey Man describes as dogmatic exclusivist as I recognise them as valid paths in their own right.

My issue with dogmatism is that it's forced to exclude any other possibility as a threat to its existence. It's not able to explore any of the possibilities I might point to without calling it 'heresy' or an 'insult.' This shuts down the processes of creativity, discovery and exploration, which is just as much a part of spirituality as something to be explored, discovered, lived. If someone doesn't resonate with the dogma it gives them no choice but to adopt it, sometimes forcefully as history would show, as the only option even if it feels inauthentic to them. It's not possible to dialogue with dogmatism as it's not able to recognise other choices as valid. Basically there's no room for me to have a conversation with dogmatism so generally I should know better and not write posts like these. I generally try to restrain myself and just observe dogmatism from a distance.

While I agree, gnosticism is a phenomena that the Church fought against in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries and onward. In today's secularized marketplace of religious ideas, they seem to allow for some agency unto oneself, which is wholly apart from the ministry of Christ. Talking about sacredness as if it's a quality apart from Jesus is simply just paganism. Spiritually outside Christ is just the self in a vacuum. Any religious or spiritual system that forgoes Christ and puts the self in the center is pagan. That is what the difference between Christianity and all the other indigenous religions around the world is. Sacredness is a pagan word anyway. What is 'sacred' is righteousness, a sense of justice, a sense of peace, a sense of advancement towards the kingdom of God. Pagan religions only provide short relief for the capitalistic lifestyle we participate ourselves in- Christianity is beyond economic and political systems. "Gnosticism", and other New Age or Aquarian cults place secularism at the center, to placate the self for the life of modernity. And that is what the true opium of the masses is.

I do respect others who have their own lifestyle, but when it comes to the theology or spirituality of those systems, they are not universal but are particulars, not about forming a community of believers. If you take a look at many of the cults and spiritual trends, many have gone off into being seditious organizations that prey on the lost, as they have for centuries in the Mediterranean and elsewhere.

Gnosticism is literally salvation through knowledge. That is not what Christianity teaches, and you know that yourself.

A lot of modern and 'new age' interest in gnosticism stems from the renaissance period, when a lot of the writings of the gnostics, hermeticists, neo-platonists and other classical theology began to be unearthed and studied. There have been a lot of people since then who identified as Christian and have an intense interest in those writings and see no contradiction between them.

The existence of the Graecized Roman Empire or 'Byzantine' Empire continues to be an inconvenient truth for certain historians, both anti-Christian ideologues who like to think that the Romans were all prudent-minded pluralists who didn't fall for the great scam that is monotheism and Christians who would prefer to imagine Greek Christianity as a marginal phenomenon that has contributed little to Western Civilization. Greek literature is supposed to have been 'discovered' in the 15th century, either ruining us or rescuing us from the deplorable ignorance of the "medieval" period (depending on the historian's bias), as if it had been buried under a rock for a thousand years, whereas it had in the meantime been interacting with Christian philosophy in Constantinople.

I'm happy to be corrected on that, thanks for raising that. Though I'm unsure if this detail changes my point, that someone who is Christian can also be interested in gnostic literature and see parallels between the two.

 

[Black Rose]

@Puffy what we are getting is a piece of text about Christ, that is not what Christ is (text). That is why I said the only way to know is to pray. That is the only direct way to be answered.

 

[The Grey Man]

@Puffy It doesn't change your point, it was rather meant to reinforce it. Writing neo-Platonism and Gnostic Christianity off as "paganism" ignores centuries of history.

 

[Old Things]

@Old Things Many interpretations are possible, some more laden with historical data than others. My point is that if we reduce religious doctrine entirely to its literal meaning, which always pertains to the particular context of its origination, we will be left with no general principles to apply to our present situation. In particular, if we take literally Christ's saying that he alone is the way, this discredits similar doctrines of other religions, which again brings us to the problem of this thread. Since I'm not an illiterate serf for whom religions other than Christianity might as well not exist, I naturally wonder how such contradictions can be reconciled, if at all. The demonstration of isomorphisms between different dogmatic systems by synthetic interpretation seems to me to be the most plausible way of doing this.

The other option would be picking the religion with the most evidence behind it.

 

[Puffy]

@Puffy what we are getting is a piece of text about Christ, that is not what Christ is (text). That is why I said the only way to know is to pray. That is the only direct way to be answered.

I agree with you, AK, and I think that's a good way of putting it. I was trying to say something similar with: "Without that living relationship spirituality is just a dead and empty husk, someone else's words on paper."

I mostly jumped into this thread because I didn't like some of onesteptwostep's responses to you. As to me it sounded like you were describing your own personal relationship with the transcendent, and he felt to disrespect you by calling that 'heretical' because it doesn't fit with what his book says.

My main criticism of the Christianity I was once apart of is that I don't think many people there had a real relationship with anything transcendent or sacred. They were just following rules in a book, written by people who had a living relationship to the transcendent thousands of years ago. It's like living in a ruined temple, with only the broken remains and artefacts of what was once full of life centuries and centuries before. Someone's writing about something is no substitute for the real thing; dogma is no substitute for communion. I don't think all Christians are like that, and I respect Christianity as a valid means of such communion, but it was a tendency with those I knew.

@Puffy It doesn't change your point, it was rather meant to reinforce it. Writing neo-Platonism and Gnostic Christianity off as "paganism" ignores centuries of history.

Thanks in that case, though I try to be welcoming of critique of my assumptions so that I have an opportunity to learn more. I'm not always good at that admittedly as I can be quite strong-headed.

 

[Old Things]

I'm happy to be corrected on that, thanks for raising that. Though I'm unsure if this detail changes my point, that someone who is Christian can also be interested in gnostic literature and see parallels between the two.

Sure, you can say, "They call themselves Christians so they are" but Gnostics have almost always been considered heretics. There's even a bit about the first Gnostic in the book of Acts who was rebuked by Apostle Peter.

 

[Black Rose]

Gnostics have almost always been considered heretics.

Do you know why that is? Seems the Gnostics existed before the Christians.

 

[Old Things]

Gnostics have almost always been considered heretics.

Do you know why that is? Seems the Gnostics existed before the Christians.

Because it goes against the idea that Christ had a physical body, which is something that is talked about all throughout the NT. Further, how can something die if it isn't an organism? Christ was said to have died on the cross and this is a pretty established view outside of Jesus Mythesists who are generally not taken seriously in scholastica. So while gnostics have all sorts of ways of explaining it, it actually detracts from some of the facts that are in the Bible. There's also the matter of Christians getting new heavenly bodies, like Christ's ascended body, in the New Heavens and the New Earth (NHNE). So Gnostics have to tie themselves in knots trying to explain some of the most basic things we know about Christ in favor of spiritualism.

 

[Puffy]

I'm happy to be corrected on that, thanks for raising that. Though I'm unsure if this detail changes my point, that someone who is Christian can also be interested in gnostic literature and see parallels between the two.

Sure, you can say, "They call themselves Christians so they are" but Gnostics have almost always been considered heretics. There's even a bit about the first Gnostic in the book of Acts who was rebuked by Apostle Peter.

I don't really see what difference this makes @Old Things . There are also verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality as an abomination -- similarly there's a history of persecution of them like heretics -- yet there are many homosexual Christians. If someone has accepted Christ as their saviour, can I really judge their faith and say 'you're not Christian because I interpret the Bible as disapproving of your orientation'? Likewise, surely one must be able to concede that someone can be a Christian and be interested in the relationship between its theology and gnosticism or neo-Platonism?

 

[Black Rose]

Jesus was able to walk through doors and walls with his sanctified body. Previously he did have a regular body that was beaten and crucified. It was no a Ghost beforehand. He felt real pain. But that is not to deny he did become a ghost and we can learn things from what ghosts are.

Jesus is a ghost and his followers are promised to become this way too.

I do not know what happens after death but I believe something is there.

 

[Old Things]

@Puffy,

If the issue of Homosexuality is a real problem for someone, but they want to be a Christian, then I would point them toward the book, "Can You Be Gay And Christian" by Dr. Michael Brown.

If on the other hand, you are just using this example to say anyone who says they are a Christian are a Christian, then I'm afraid you don't know what it means to actually be a Christian because there a lots of verses in the Bible about not having authentic faith. The book of James is a good resource on this.

 

[Old Things]

@Animekitty,

Jesus was not a ghost. We know this because he could eat food in his glorified body. Yes, he could walk through walls and such, but he could also eat real food. In fact, Thomas, who was doubting Jesus was resurrected, said he wouldn't believe unless he was able to put his hands in Jesus' wounds. Jesus showed him his wounds and Thomas believed.

 

[Puffy]

@Old Things I would seriously probe you for endorsing that book but I think it would derail the thread. You're welcome to pull up your draw-bridge and to only allow who you judge to be as purist into your fort, but I assure you the grass is greener and the sun brighter from where us heretics are standing so I think I'll leave you to it and continue on my merry way.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

That's rare, an actually well put together, interesting thread on philosophy of religion. Well done OP, I never read these so that's a first.

One remark I would make in the context of practical Roman Catholic Christianity is that none of that philosophy of religion stuff ever comes into play in the context of any follower's religious experience. They go to mass, digest the teaching and apply it. Transcendence or the concept of it is not needed as they participate in a cultural experience that has a set pattern and utility. If there was no god mentioned anywhere in the bible they would still (dogmatically) follow the cultural aspects of the whole thing.

My experience of baiting, trolling and annoying Catholic priests with philosophical questions tells me that they hold very heretical thoughts. They are aware of gnostics, enjoy kabbalah like one would enjoy fanfiction, love classifying demon types and ghost types or schools of fortune telling, some of them hold personal views that go against the church, particularly on trans, gay and abortion matters. They stick with the church, despite their expanded philosophical inclinations because I guess it's the best summary or generalization of their life's work, profits and interests, even if flawed, but as honest intellectuals even they can't rely on dogma alone to feed their faith world.

I find it ridiculous to see people think they know or understand dogma. Vain repetitions? Really? Actually educate yourself on Christianity before you rabble on like rutless teenager. Your problem isn't knowledge, it's emotional. Wake the f*** up.

That's a perfectly dogmatic response. Chill the f*** out please.

I was about to say mathematics and then this happened:

Christianity is not Hinduism any more than a circle is a triangle, but just as triangle can be inscribed within a circle so that the sides of the former meet the circumference of the latter, so can different systems with different postulates be mapped onto each other.

Isomorphism​

I can maybe generalize the whole thing as math does the same things:
1. logos = mathematical logic and principles
2. gnosis = conjectures (both the act of making conjectures and what they postulate), incompleteness theorem, transcendental number theory
3. dogma = algebra, geometry, analysis and more advanced tools
There are parts of mathematics that brush close to spiritual, it can be used to form a belief system of sorts, based on aesthetics similar to faith, it is built upon a perfect order that is awe inspiring etc.

And generalize even more. Take any philosophical system, belief system field of knowledge and 1. you will be able to find a guiding principle similar to logos 2. a speculative, mythological or fuzzy boundary like gnosis and 3. hard, procedural logical toolset for understanding/modelling the world with said system (dogma).

Is it a reflection on how humans do logic, categorisation or structure building or is it something universal to the hierarchy of relations in the world?

If anything "god" seems more like the whole universe at once, not a tiny slice of it that is defined by any single religion. Religion and science both are functions with varying slopes that approach the description of the totality of it all. Except most religions do not innovate much so their functional slopes are really flat.

It's the equivalent of a race where one truth seeker flies a hypersonic jet and another drives a go-kart, but I get it, to each their own and go-kart do offer unique experience over hypersonic jets

Christianity/Islam/Judaism are built on the common mythos of abrahamic religions and yet they all contradict the validity of plurality of views knowing that most of their own beliefs and information is present, word for word or analogously, across religious texts belonging to other religions. They can't even agree that their own sects are valid. That takes fanatical dishonesty to achieve. Abrahamic mythos is mostly derived from proto Indo-European primitive beliefs anyway.

 

[Old Things]

And generalize even more. Take any philosophical system, belief system field of knowledge and 1. you will be able to find a guiding principle similar to logos 2. a speculative, mythological or fuzzy boundary like gnosis and 3. hard, procedural logical toolset for understanding/modelling the world with said system.

That's an interesting theory.

People have been trying to find out what the Logos is, as you describe it, for a very long time. That is to say people have been trying to find the underlying principles of things for about as long as humans have existed. I'd also say, the previous comes ladened with what you call the Gnosis. And to be sure, the Logos also comes with its fair share of a Toolset as you define it as well. So, in my humble opinion, I would say how you derive the Logos is through a synthesis of both Gnosis and Toolset.

So I would say it differently than you would. I might say it takes a good balance of Spirituality and Dogma to get to get to the Transcendent.

FMPOV, I think it takes Faith, and in doing so, running out the Law of that Faith to get to some sort of Transcendence.

I don't think you can actually get to the Transcendent/Logos, without doing something with both the Spiritual/Gnosis, and the Dogma/Toolset, of that Spirituality/Gnosis.

I also don't think it is practical to focus solely on the Faith with no regard for Law and vise versa, because otherwise, life is pretty pointless.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

The thing about Jesus being the bridge to the transcendent is that he was the bridge to God by being the redeemer at the time.

There have been other redeemers, such as Moses.

It is a spiritual title.