For he who reposes upon the lie of millennia the truth is a challenge, it forces one to think when before faith was sufficient, indeed even necessary for the salvation of the soul. But to see the truth one must first understand the lie, such as how the possession of knowledge constitutes the root of all sin before the Christian God, making the man of knowledge himself into the sinner par excellence. Meanwhile of course the priest has always peddled the moral imperative ‘thou shalt not know!’ Surely considering all this it’s plain to see how the man of knowledge is in fact an immoralist, and that the truth itself is nothing more than a product of the immoralist will.
It’s strange then that Christianity was almost all about Truth. “The truth shall set you free”, “I am the light, the truth, and the way”. The history of Christianity features an almost desperate clinging to “Truth” as heresy was, in many cases, punishable by death. And it’s obvious why: one had to know the truth in order to be saved from the flames of Hell.
The Saint himself will tell you one truly knows very few things- knowledge disavowed, the truth hidden, the lie of millennia hard at work.
Do you have any sources for this?
Sounds to me like the words of an atheist put into the mouth of a theist. From the atheist point of view, sure, everything the Bible tells you is a lie, but then you seem to be taking that point of view and claiming it is the Bible itself (or Christians, or the clergy, or Jesus himself) saying “believe in these lies”.
It’s a matter of history that knowledge itself has been considered by the Church to be a root of sin and that the man of knowledge is consequently necessarily an immoralist. I can just imagine the completely ignorant people of the dark ages nodding their heads… Don’t mistake a call to faith for an invitation to knowledge on a part of the priest.
The conflicts of beliefs are the conflicts of self. There is no separation, we as humans cannot force this conflict onto each-other, to our will for self-benefit. There’s nothing we can say to convince any-one else of what they do not know for themselves. And once the barriers of awareness expand and is unveiled all that which is life will be known to them. [-o< =D> [-o< =D>
I followed you all the way up to this part;
The man of knowledge begins and often never escapes being an immoralist. Because he thinks, he chooses moment by moment how to behave, thus not consciously holding to any particular morality.
But if he thinks enough and has enough experience with “sin”, he can, and will, find a law that he will never willingly betray and he knows it. At that point he has become a true moralist, but not of faith, but rather of certainty and thus even more reliable that those of faith. He becomes the rock upon which those of faith have always stood, a man of “under-standing”.
What we can “cause” to happen, is that others see a relationship between things that they already knew, a relationship that they had not seen before. That is the true spirit of a “light giver”, "because you already know these things, realize how they are connected". Providing clarity in the midst of obfuscation is the path. Instilling that clarity is the saving.
It’s those terrible christians again.
Ok yes it is taught that knowledge = sin.
You should be the next pope; you know christianity better than it knows itself.
Man descends to immoralism that the truth may be known, and with it knowledge of the Lord’s victory over his enemies.
Indeed, that most surreptitious weapon in moral man’s archaic arsenal: descending to immoralism to help conquer the wicked.