At last the truth does out. Now you admit your philosophy 'knowledge of Christ', is not knowledge. But of course it isn't. It is faith and always was and with the word Christ, it's religious faith. Indeed, from all the muddled reasoning and contradiction in your posts which express that philosophy, jumping off it seems like a good idea. And it remains that going by what you say, knowledge you 'invite' from that jump might just as well produce 'a knowledge of No Christ', unless of course your faith gets in the way. I bet you have. But to be frank, it sure sounds like the kind of knowledge most wouldn't want to know about. And for the sake of reasoning and honesty better off not knowing about.
Douglas Adams mic-dropped this stuff 40 years ago... "The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier, but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish. Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that something so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' 'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and vanishes in a puff of logic. 'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing. "
A description of the knowledge of Christ is a description. A description is not the knowledge itself. Since there are only two states of mind to be had, knowledge and faith, descriptions fall into the category of faith. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. It is not the wisdom itself, but a framework of thought that might induce the wisdom to dawn upon one's mind. There are only two states of mind: knowledge, and faith. If wisdom and knowledge are the same thing, then philosophy falls into the category of faith, as it describes some wisdom, or as it uses parables to describe something of much more value than faith. As an atheist, you operate on faith every day, not having the knowledge of Christ. Your faith is not much different from the theistic faith that believes in the god-of-this-world, but has no faith in a Good (God) that i can describe that is much better (actually good) than the god-of-this-world that most theists believe in. Toward the Good that i can describe, those theists are actually atheists. Toward their god-of-this-world, you are an atheist, and yet you believe in the things you see, which themselves are the product of faith (bees, trees, seas). So the world you live in is like a religious faith, if by religious you mean ardent, bigoted and narrow minded. It is made by faith, and you believe in it, reinforcing a narrow minded loop. The god-of-this-world theists believe in the world you see as much as you do. You only disagree, with your respective faiths, on how and/or why the world you see was made. So while their faith might be called bigoted religious, yours might be called bigoted scientific, which is just the observation of persistent phenomena. Doesn't mean the persistent phenomena is not faith built, and faith driven. The observer has a lot to do with what he sees, which has everything to do with what he believes. Nope, not one contradiction in what i've written, which is a hallmark of good philosophy. Only a conflict of interest in readers/interpreters who have an agenda. You have faith that there is no such thing as the knowledge of Christ as a reality to be experienced. That agenda twists everything i say, forcing round pegs into your square holes. Christ is a descriptive word that some use as a title, some use as a name. I use it as a term of astonishment when a mind discovers, and knows reality, having been imprisoned in the unreality of faith for such a long time. There are no words in the domain of knowledge of which i speak (describe). Not even the term 'Christ', as there is no significant distinction between Christ and anything else, once the mind KNOWS. Yes, you have to invite it because it's loss is maintained by dis-invitation. You invite because it is an intelligence with excellent etiquette, respecting your personal head space, even if it is totally twisted. I don't think you've explained why it is better not to know about reality, when you are living in a completely unreal, faith-built, faith-maintained "world". So i think this comment speaks more about a bigoted agenda than a free mind.
If there were only two states of mind to be had mistaking faith as knowledge would be something that couldn't be rectified. It's evident that's what you are doing. But of course there aren't just two states of mind. A passive state of mind for instance, can reasonably maintain that due to a lack of rational evidence, there would simply be no justification for investing faith or knowledge into imaginary Christ concepts any more than there would be to give similar credence to fairies at the bottom of the garden. A framework of thought may also induce the wisdom that what might dawn upon one's mind was just faith masquerading as wisdom. Oh come on now stop going round in circles. We've done this. You don't get a special pleading pass just 'cause you say you have knowledge in place of faith. Mine or anyone else's "knowledge of Christ" is every bit as valid. As is my, yours, or anyone else's "knowledge of Santa Claus". Except maybe more so when not relying on the word salads and the self-contradicting arguments you use. BTW talking of good philosophy and to put it politely, it's more like silly pseudo-philosophy in straightforward contradiction to claim no faith is faith. Lol. How religious people do so like to tell others what they have, how things are and what to think! All I'm saying is ducks are ducks, and religious faith is religious faith and by any kind of rational understanding, your 'knowledge of Christ' can be nothing more than religious faith. Putting the word knowledge in front of the word Christ still doesn't make it anything other than religious belief. It's fine and good luck to you with your religious belief, but it's not philosophically sound nor is it at all honest to claim it is something else. Then I again humbly suggest after all your word play you invite wisdom enough to acquire some understanding that what you are going on about is just religious faith and the knowledge you talk of can only be religious belief. Why that seems to bother you so much is anyone's guess.