It is Christian in that it takes the crucifixion seriously as the permanent structural condition of finite consciousness. Christ on the cross is the image of what it means to be alive: stretched between irreconcilable poles, bearing the tension without collapse. The framework honors this image more than most Christian theology does, because it doesn't rush past the crucifixion toward the resurrection, it stays there as the condition of consciousness.

But it is anti-Christian in that it denies the resurrection as cosmic resolution. The cross is permanent, there is no redemption that erases the suffering, there is no final reconciliation where the opposites are harmonized. The individual must bear their own cross not as a temporary burden that God will eventually lift, but as the ongoing work of individuation, which has no endpoint. The framework denies the privatio boni - the all-good God, the moral arc, the promise that suffering is justified and evil is temporary. These denials are fundamental enough that the framework cannot be absorbed into Christianity. It accepts the crucifixion and refuses the resurrection.

The framework is gnostic in its diagnosis of the world. The world is fallen, it is steeped in philosophical pessimism: to be alive is to suffer, to consume other living creatures, to be crucified between endless opposing energies. The gnostic intuition - that something is deeply wrong with the structure of reality, that suffering is not an anomaly but a feature - is the framework's phenomenological starting point.

But it is anti-gnostic in its refusal of the standard gnostic escape. Classical gnosticism posits a good God above and beyond the Demiurge. The Demiurge rules this world and the true God is above/elsewhere. Salvation consists in recognizing this and escaping through gnosis, through withdrawal, through ascent. The framework denies this structure entirely. Abraxas is not the Demiurge, Abraxas is the totality - the good and the evil, the light and the dark, the creator and the destroyer, all at once. There is no good God above Abraxas, there is no escape from the totality into a higher goodness, the only move is to individuate away from Abraxas, to bear the crucifixion consciously, to add consciousness to what would otherwise remain unconscious.

This is a more radical position than gnosticism. The gnostic at least has somewhere to go, but the Abraxian position offers no exit. It offers only the slow, painful work of bearing what is, without denial and without hope of eventual rescue.

The framework's relationship to these traditions is a deliberate synthesis that takes the tragic elements of each tradition while refusing their redemptive elements. It takes the crucifixion from Christianity and the fallen world from gnosticism, but it refuses the resurrection from the first and the escape from the second.

This is why the framework feels alien to most readers. It resonates with elements of traditions they may know - the cross, the fallen world, the problem of evil - but it refuses the consolations those traditions provide. The reader who expects the framework to resolve into Christianity will be disappointed. The reader who expects it to resolve into gnostic dualism will be disappointed. The framework is neither. It's something else: a non-redemptive, non-dualist, tragic metaphysics that accepts the crucifixion as permanent and offers no escape.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5867734&forum_id=2...id.#49892039)