Thanks so much for your lucid reply. What I understood of it was music to my ears!
On Ken W, he argues, does he not, that the nature of Enlightenment changes? (Which is not to confuse the idea of an initiatory chain with enlightenment but still...)
And you are absolutely correct, I believe, about the false narratives. I'm still a little confused and have to go away and think more but as you probably know, crucifixion is symbol of one of the "higher" initiations? Partly, it's perhaps about the idea that the Initiate is so in touch with humanity that its tortures and iniquities tear him/her apart? (That's my interpretation. If it's real, this is a stage lifetimes off for me and many others, I would suggest. Including you. Just in case any of us get any ideas....)
But wow. THANK YOU.
Oh, btw I have to say that I agree fully that in some cases metaphysics masks crap ethics. Brilliant observation. I do it myself. I might post about it. "Magical thinking" is fascinating.
Cool, thanks! Yes, Wilber is, in part, a process philosopher. God is a verb so to speak.
Those are mystical interpretations of the meaning of the crucifixion (something I have zero issue with) but the main historical point is that it didn't appear to have happened; certainly not as described literally.
FYI: what I'm doing on my blog is giving Christian Gnosticism a voice. It's up to any individual, of course, to come to their own conclusions about this whole bloody mess...
And thank-you, too:)