Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

What exactly should I be embarrassed about?

Are you not at least a little red-faced at your choice of example? Are you not at all conscious of its manifest vileness? Am I to suppose you only accidentally made the incident so nasty and specific?

And there were alternatives aplenty. It should have been quite easy to ask exactly the same question in a more civil and less prurient way. One could, for example, say, "Are Christians morally obligated to remain pacifist in the face of aggression against innocents?" Fair question, put in a fair way. It would deserve a civil reply.

But you know that. And I know you're not asking me to awaken your conscience on that point for you. You knew it was an extreme example when you first wrote it, and you repeated it in a detailed way in order to refresh the intended impact. I'm not at all fooled by the "What, me?" stance that has followed.

My point is simply that conversation is not well served by reductios and allegations of this sort; especially when they involve imputing to your interlocutors some vile moral oversight...which this certainly did.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I assume this latter section, being separated from the former by both by a black line and by its language, is not addressed to me, so I won't respond to it, in order not to irritate you. Still, it's odd that, in a message to me rather than a separate message to all, you see fit to slip into third person pronouns and talk about me (so to speak) behind my back and in front of my face at the same time.

You are not so much 'assuming' as you are making a sort of determination, no? You are choosing to see that 'black line' and what followed in a certain way, are you not? What I wrote was directed to the denizens of this thread, and it was inspired by and responds to the structure of declaration that I see in you.

You do not have any power to *irritate* me. I am not here to be irritated. What I am here to do is exactly what I have explained. I am here for my own purposes, working out my own thoughts and perspectives. The reason you will not respond is because you cannot respond. And you mask that incapacity with a false-front.

Making references to you, and using the third person, is a way to objectify the statements I am making. But this is because I am not interested in *you as a person*. I am though interested in you as a reflection of cultural phenomena. So let me get this straight: now you are going to begin to cry salt tears because I referred to you in the third person?!? You are sensitive . . .

This is all great fun IC. Do not lose your sense of humor.

It smacks less of a conversation, and more of a propaganda tactic. It seems I'm supposed to assume a vast "other audience" before which you and I are supposed to "perform." And I suppose the effect is intended to be that I'm supposed to be cowed somewhat thereby, and feel myself "talked about" rather than "talked to." Like Prufrock, I'm supposed to feel myself "pinned and wriggling," I suppose.

Long ago I realized that in addition to being a place to exchange ideas and encounter dissimilar people (where sparks are produced) this medium is also a form of entertainment. And certainly performing here is part of it. I really do see this as 'entertaining performance' and, if that is so, one should be aware of one's audience.

In addition to the 7-8 people who read here (I guess I should reveal this now) this thread has an audience of many millions. I spend half my day reponding to PMs. "Alexis Jacobi, thank you! Your writing has changed my life!" is a typical message. (I am trying to get them to send money by PayPal but as yet no luck).

And I suppose the effect is intended to be that I'm supposed to be cowed somewhat thereby

But you are not really cowed, are you? Didn't you say that people try to tear at you but only 'gum you'? (Meaning that they had no teeth). I have just one tooth like Baby Herman but am doing all I can!

But if that's the attempt, it's not the effect. I'm not the least concerned, whether anybody is reading along or not. In fact, it would be fun if they are. Not only do I stand by the above claim, I'll underline it for you: what Christ says determines what "Christianity" is. And it has nothing to do with me.

So all I can say is that I invite you to talk as imperiously as you like about me, in the most detached and cynical tones you can muster, and summon a fictive audience as broad as the Atlantic: and see if I care one jot. The claim stands or falls on its own truth value. And I'm certain you know that, even if you don't want to admit it.

If you keep whimpering like this I may have to take it as admittance of defeat.

Take yourself less seriously and carry on.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you not at least a little red-faced at your choice of example? Are you not at all conscious of its manifest vileness? Am I to suppose you only accidentally made the incident so nasty and specific?

The example was chosen very consciously. Do you mean that the example (the picture let's say) was a vile image? Or that I am a vile person and engaged in vile activity because I presented it?

You are not to suppose that it was chosen accidentally. It was deliberately chosen because it illustrated something about the natural and protective instinct of man for a girl or a daughter that, in all cultures, elicits a protection response. If you are offended I can only suggest that you deal with your offense internally. What else could a person say?

[Immanuel Can]

This is all great fun IC. Do not lose your sense of humor.

Well, if this is the sum of it, I'm losing interest in this level of conversation. It's not sufficiently stimulating for me.

I have only so much time to invest, and this conversation is turning into a questionable investment. We're not exchanging ideas anymore...you've dragged it down to ad homs and rhetorical playfighting.

I just don't have the time for that. Sorry.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you not at least a little red-faced at your choice of example? Are you not at all conscious of its manifest vileness? Am I to suppose you only accidentally made the incident so nasty and specific?

The example was chosen very consciously.

I know that.

I know much more than you think I do. But I'm of the same view as before: it was vile and gratuitious, a rather cheap attempt at shock-and-awe, when a civil question would easily have done a better job.

And it failed. But it's not characteristic of you, so I'm content to rebuff it and then continue as if it did not happen. Whether you want to acknowledge what your conscience is telling you about it is up to you. I shall say no more on that subject.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, if this is the sum of it, I'm losing interest in this level of conversation. It's not sufficiently stimulating for me.

I have only so much time to invest, and this conversation is turning into a questionable investment. We're not exchanging ideas anymore...you've dragged it down to ad homs and rhetorical playfighting.

I just don't have the time for that. Sorry.

It will be 'the sum of it' if you make that choice. And it looks to me as if you are beginning to make that choice. But my assessment is different from yours. I think that the fallaciousness of the position(s) you hold has been exposed to a significant and notable degree. And you are now concocting excuses and looking for a way out.

And you don't need to apologize! Why do you keep using that word? It's irritating! )

I have not stopped 'discussing idea' at any point. That is all I do really.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if this is the sum of it, I'm losing interest in this level of conversation. It's not sufficiently stimulating for me.

I have only so much time to invest, and this conversation is turning into a questionable investment. We're not exchanging ideas anymore...you've dragged it down to ad homs and rhetorical playfighting.

I just don't have the time for that. Sorry.

It will be 'the sum of it' if you make that choice.

You're making it. I'm not the one changing the terms of our exchange.

It's regrettable, but unless you want to return to more relevant conversation and drop the rhetorics and ad homs, there's no place we can go. I would prefer to think we could stop the nonsense and get back to important things. But that will depend.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I would prefer to think we could stop the nonsense and get back to important things. But that will depend.

Man, you drive a hard bargain!

The following is what I would like to discuss. I removed the *black line* but the third-person pronouns remain.

AJ to IC: You do not own the regeneration processes friend.
IC: Of course I don't. I never claimed I did. Christ does, though.

First, I am forced to 'make clarifying declarations'. I am forced to confront, and to a degree to oppose, what Immanuel Can says. But please note that what IC does is important to notice and understand: he establishes polarizations and oppositions. Why? Well because they serve him. But let me broaden this observation to the farthest point: Christianity operates through the establishment of extreme oppositions. Indeed it has a profoundly Manichean understructure that, though officially repressed, nevertheless still functions through the figure of Satan.

The Christian God is divided off from a total picture of what Life is when God is defined as *wholly and absolutely good* and everything else, including all life's paradoxes, including everything that makes life life! is assigned to the Dark Angel. The point is not to attempt to resolve this *picture* but simply to present it so that it can be examined.

Now, it seems that IC's declaration -- an invitation to *bite* on an absolutist bait that he dangles from time to time which, I suggest, has had and still has a profound attractiveness for the wavering soul -- proposes a 'resolution'. I would not deny that it functions in this way. Nor would I deny that the function should be dismissed (or undermined) if another person takes the *bait* and jumps headlong into the current of 'becoming a Christian'. This is my own peculiar conflict. I have examined the innards of Christian philosophy and it really does offer, and in fact it is, a viable life-path. Christianity is extraordinarily rich on so many levels that all that it is cannot be dismissed. Nor should it be.

Yet I question the 'absolutism' in these declarative statements. So what I propose is *interpretation*. And interpretation opens up a more subtle relationship to what is declared and revealed in these absolutist statements even though and even if they are Biblical and are said to represent Absolute Truth. To interpret (hermeneutics generally) is always an endeavor that will cause one to run afoul of hierarchies of authority. But what I can say is that there is, indeed there is, a way to *take* the statements made by the Gospel Jesus Christ in John that 'opens up' arrays of possibility that expand out from the hard and fast program that, as I see it, Immanuel Can presents himself as and sees himself as 'representing'.

Immanuel Can then, to employ a certain lens, shelters himself behind the God Image (as absolute authority) and thus empowers himself. All he need do is say "No, not me, God!" and all contradictory or opposing or questioning statements -- anything brought out against his argument -- are so many 'bullets that miss'. No bullet can ever hit. In the final analysis this is the refuge and the fort of a religious fanatic.

So here I could embark on a conceptual undertaking of making statements about what being 'born of the spirit' can mean. The 'spirit' in my interpretation is free-ranging. In fact, and this is an understructure that runs all through John and the Johannine epistles, there is a Hermetic (mercurial) substructure to it. Hermes is the intermediary and *messenger* (angel) that spans the upper world and the lower world. And what message is brought? Well, what requires rebirth? Deadened souls certainly. This implies *thirst* if not even *dying of thirst*. But what nourishes? Well to answer that question ask any person, anywhere, who embarks on a path of self-renovation. If one accepts that 1) a person can and does become deadened, then 2) it is immediately and concomitantly proposed that, through all sorts of processes, a person can rebirth themselves or 'be rebirthed' since we are not, hardly at all, the authors or the controllers of life's genuine processes. We simply are in life and the story of life flows around us. Similarly, we are in bodies and these bodies do everything without our conscious decision and choice.

So what is referred to with these Johannine declarations can be expanded to any point. If they are true (and psychological death and rebirth are 'as true as rain', they are universal. No one owns them.

But here of course we would have to veer into those cultural and social systems that are, in fact, overseen and controlled by hierarchical structures. So in a sense there are 'Christian Clubs' that you join. And by subscribing and paying membership dues you agree, on different planes, to 'abide by the rules'. All social systems have such structures and make similar demands.

Everyone has to make their social commitments, right? We make our commitments to the State for example. Or simply our neighborhood or a neighborhood council or indeed the covenants of a housing project, our social circle, etc. A church structure can be examined in this way. I have researched early Christianity and it *functioned* as a form of induction into 'higher things' and new sets of commitment. I do not negate 'being born from above' but, and I am sorry for my heretical posture, I do not believe that man controls or dictates who has access to such processes. But at the same time I do not negate hierarchical structures that oversee such processes, indeed all processes. I mean getting a doctorate is highly supervised. You have to satisfy all sorts of requirements. These structures have relevancy.

The following is from Jung's Aion. Everything about Jung is a bit bizarre but he really does have significant insights that, in my view, must be taken into consideration. The shattering of the God Image is what is referred to with the reference to Job, and Job's crisis, in a way that can be supported by coherent discourse, is also the crisis we face in a world (our world, our personal perceptual world) where the horizon was erased. Job's crisis and nihilism have a certain connection, no?

So there is clearly a mythological backdrop to the Christian story. It proposes to know the most hidden, but the most relevant, things about life, human destiny and the destiny -- literally! -- of the world and the kosmos. It presents a map and, if Jung is right, the map can be examined from a variety of perspectives. Jung does this through a psychological lens but, and this is odd, also as a visionary (which does mean, to one degree of other, as a prophet). Jung is involved in a vastly hermeneutical project in the most original sense of the word.

I have divided this into paragraphs that were not in the original:

It is the same problem as in Job. As the highest value and
supreme dominant in the psychic hierarchy, the God-image is
immediately related to, or identical with, the self, and every-
thing that happens to the God-image has an effect on the latter.

Any uncertainty about the God-image causes a profound uneasi-
ness in the self, for which reason the question is generally
ignored because of its painfulness. But that does not mean that
it remains unasked in the unconscious. What is more, it is
answered by views and beliefs like materialism, atheism, and
similar substitutes, which spread like epidemics. They crop up
wherever and whenever one waits in vain for the legitimate
answer. The ersatz product represses the real question into the
unconscious and destroys the continuity of historical tradition
which is the hallmark of civilization. The result is bewilder-
ment and confusion.

Christianity has insisted on God's goodness
as a loving Father and has done its best to rob evil of substance.
The early Christian prophecy concerning the Antichrist, and
certain ideas in late Jewish theology, could have suggested to us
that the Christian answer to the problem of Job omits to men-
tion the corollary, the sinister reality of which is now being
demonstrated before our eyes by the splitting of our world:
the destruction of the God-image is followed by the annulment
of the human personality. Materialistic atheism with its utopian
chimeras forms the religion of all those rationalistic movements
which delegate the freedom of personality to the masses and
thereby extinguish it. The advocates of Christianity squander
their energies in the mere preservation of what has come down
to them, with no thought of building on to their house and
making it roomier. Stagnation in these matters is threatened in
the long run with a lethal end.

[Immanuel Can]

I would prefer to think we could stop the nonsense and get back to important things. But that will depend.

Man, you drive a hard bargain!

Harder still. I'm not done.

The following is what I would like to discuss. I removed the *black line* but the third-person pronouns remain.

I see a lot of mischaracterizations and ad hominem comments there, none of which I feel remotely inclined to respond to, and none of which is even remotely relevant to the topics in hand. I will address anything you will ask without mentioning me as a person, or making perverse assumptions about my character. In short, I will address anything that is relevant and on topic.

So feel free to cut anything requiring a pronoun referring to me personally. No discussion of me, no reductios, no slanders. Just issues.

After that, anything is fair game. You can ask anything, and I'll answer honestly, as best I can. And we can get back to speaking to each other, not to mysterious, presumed "audiences" and sundry others.

It's up to you, then, whether you want to reform that old block of stuff, pulling out the urgent features, or decide it really wasn't all that important in the first place.

[Nick_A]

The Bible is a psychological text and not a literal text. It provokes pondering for those who sense something of value for human being as a whole.
>>
Christianity IMO is far deeper than most are aware of. People can argue it and it is like the "Ship of Fools" Plato described; all meaningless opinions lacking the potency to profit from it in their being as is possible for a person.
>>
Who understands that unmixed attention enables a person to get out of their own way long enough to ponder from the depth of their being rather than reacting from their own defense mechanisms. Yet people want to argue what they do not understand. Apparently it is the way of the world.

There remains the symbolic logic which negates its literalness for a more expansive view inherent in it's symbolism, which, by it's very definition refuses to remain fixed. The lowest level of understanding has always been that which is readily declared and accepted at face-value...true whether it be science, religion and all questions thrust into consciousness.

Thought expresses the mysteries nature itself created in us. The greatest of all arts may be that of interpretation as opposite to any blatant endorsements of truth, which in itself was never a "thing" but a process. It's the fulfillment of metaphor consummating itself in a vast hierarchy of symbols creating its own temples of meaning based on a process of reevaluation rather than revelation.

For me, one of the most stimulating, though there are others, is Carl Jung's specific mention of "Christ, a Symbol of the Self".

For a very long time Christianity retained its mystery when taken literally. In effect, it had a body which possessed a soul. It was that soul which contained the mystery. Now, nearly all of that has reversed and restructured itself in a more emblematic way requiring a more sophisticated understanding than that previously required or expected.

Without those cryptograms of existence, there can be no knowledge which like an Odyssey proceeds to be discovered even if that circle never closes. Perhaps a new kind of Christianity will emerge, giving it the force to remove itself from the confines of a biblical god at its centre holding everything down, "disallowing all other gods" in an ego frenzy of self-worship, demanding absolute obedience, or else! What religiously appears as a "divine command", not to be infringed, would, at a lower level, be regarded as an arbitrary command of a dictator.

What humans have historically accepted so readily, virtually without question, has imploded jettisoning in its wake a plethora of new questions which have the power to grow new articles of belief in a cosmos which has nothing in common with the one once accepted as god's creation.

I agree that understanding sacred writings requires the ability to distinguish between literal truths and psychological truths. But when we try to do it from our own interpretations based on acquired personality traits, we just move from one partial truth to another.

The Bible through its use of parables describes the ancient means to inspire contemplation rather than interpretations. How to keep the mind open so as to be able to grasp psychological meaning?

Dr Nicoll was a student of Carl Jung before beginning his time with Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. In this excerpt from the New Man he discusses how parables protects the mind from premature classifications.

http://yahadblogs.org/HNR/Documents/Mau ... ew-Man.pdf

The question arises: Why are these so−called sacred writings cast in misleading form? Why is not
what is meant explained clearly? If the story of Jacob's supplanting of Esau, or, again, of the
Tower of Babel, or of the Ark constructed in three storeys riding on the. flood, is not literally true
but has a quite different inner meaning, why is it all not made evident? Why again should parables
be used in the Gospels? Why not say directly what is meant? And if a person thinking in this way
were to ask why the story of Creation in Genesis, which clearly cannot be taken literally, means
something else, something quite different from what the literal words mean, he might very well
conclude that the so−called sacred writings are nothing but a kind of fraud deliberately perpetrated on Mankind.
If all these stories, allegories, myths, comparisons and parables in Sacred Scripture
mean something else, why can it not be stated clearly what they mean from the starting−point so
that everyone can understand? Why veil everything? Why all this mystery, this obscurity?

The idea behind all sacred writing is to convey a higher meaning than the literal words contain, the
truth of which must be seen by Man internally. This higher, concealed, inner, or esoteric, meaning,
cast in the words and sense−images of ordinary usage, can only be grasped by the understanding,
and it is exactly here that the first difficulty lies in conveying higher meaning to Man. A person's
literal level of understanding is not necessarily equal to grasping psychological meaning. To
understand literally is one thing: to understand psychologically is another. Let us take some
examples. The commandment says: "Thou shalt not kill. " This is literal. But the psychological
meaning is: "Thou shalt not murder in thy heart. " The first meaning is literal: the second meaning
is psychological, and is actually given in Leviticus. Again the commandment: "Thou shalt not
commit adultery" is literal, but the psychological meaning, which is more than this, refers to
mixing different doctrines, different teachings. That is why it is often said that people went
whoring after other gods, and so on. Again, the literal meaning of the commandment: "Thou shalt
not steal" is obvious, but the psychological meaning is far deeper. To steal, psychologically,
means to think that you do everything from yourself, by your own powers, not realizing that you
do not know who you are or how you think or feel, or how you even move. It is, as it were, taking
everything for granted and ascribing everything to yourself. It refers to an attitude. But if a man
were told this directly, he would not understand. So the meaning is veiled, because if it were
expressed in literal form no one would believe it, and everyone would think it mere nonsense. The
idea would not be understood—and worse still, it would be taken as ridiculous. Higher knowledge,
higher meaning, if it falls on the ordinary level of understanding, will either seem nonsense, or it
will be wrongly understood. It will then become useless, and worse. Higher meaning can only be
given to those who are close to grasping it rightly. This is one reason why all sacred
writings—that is, writings that are designed to convey more than the literal sense of the
words—must be concealed, as it were, by an outer wrapping. It is not a question of misleading
people, but a question of preventing this higher meaning from falling in the wrong place, on lower
meaning, and thereby having its finer significance destroyed.

It is obvious to me how much harm results from literal interpretations. Yet the real value from the gospels comes through conscious contemplation of its contradictions and parables

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's up to you, then, whether you want to reform that old block of stuff, pulling out the urgent features, or decide it really wasn't all that important in the first place.

My impression is that you have just had a teenager's meltdown. It is your show and I can't help you in any way with it. What I write is what I think and is a summation of where I stand in regard to important issues. Deal with it as it is, or don't. It is your choice 100% not mine.

[Nick_A]

You find meaning in denial and I find it through humility making conscious contemplation possible.

Life has offered me nothing but a pain in the arse. Everything I have done in life has been a chore and a struggle.
Although, having said that, I have made a success of my life and my children have fared very well for having me as a mother. But only because I was a very good actress, and was able to perform my role as a loving caring person very well. Inside, I was totally broken...I kept my brokeness always to myself as private, no one knew but me.

For a long time I have been in bed with David Benatar. Who is a South African philosopher, academic and author. He is best known for his advocacy of antinatalism in his book ''Better Never to Have Been'' and ''The Harm of Coming into Existence''
I just happen to agree with David 150%


Personally, I find nothing pleasurable about being alive at all. And if I was to draw on some purpose or meaning from life, it would be that life will END at the death of the body. Death to me, is the good news.


When I think about the sensation of being alive comparing it to the time I never existed. I would definitely prefer to be in that place of non-existence. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why there is something rather than nothing, and I do not even care or want to know.


All I know is that I would definitely choose non-existence over existence. On that note it is clear that nothing is choosing existence because if it was...I wouldn't be here talking about it... and that is the sole reason I know that there is no creator. The thing is..the creator known as God, to me, has about as much chance of existing, as do little white fluffy rabbits on the planet mars.

But thanks for comments though Nick... all I can do is be completely open and honest with myself. I have often pondered the purpose and meaning, and the idea of a creator god....but logic and common sense always mangaged to get the better of me, leaving me with zero interest in imaginary creator gods.

It's one of the reasons I was drawn to Non-duality at a very young age...I knew very early on in my life that life was a really bad screwed up idea, and that if there was a creator then it's ..................and I've just ran out of words.


.

What is your aim? If your aim is the experience of truth or is your aim freedom from truth?

The extreme greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it. Simone Weil.

We all suffer and some do more than others. Can a human being profit from suffering as long as they "consciously suffer." Jesus experienced a voluntary conscious death. He consciously experienced all the horrors our species could invent. This invited the Holy Spirit to reconcile it from a higher conscious perspective leading to the Resurrection.

How many are willing to suffer for truth and freedom from imaginary fears? A person must decide if they are willing to and need the conscious experience of life's sufferings or do they prefer avoid it and remain on the wheel of samsara in the hope of eternal death.

I have already said before that sacrifice is necessary. Without sacrifice, nothing can be attained. But if there is anything in the world that people do not understand it is the idea of sacrifice. They think they have to sacrifice something that they have. For example, I once said that they must sacrifice "faith", "tranquility", or "health." All these words must be taken in quotation marks. In actual fact, they have to sacrifice only what they imagine they have, and which in reality they do not have. They must sacrifice their fantasies. This is difficult for them, very difficult. It is much easier to sacrifice real things.

Another thing that people must give up is their suffering. It is very difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any pleasure you like but he will not give up his suffering. Man is made in such a way that he is never so attached to anything as he is to his suffering. And it is necessary to be free from suffering. No one who is not free from suffering, who has not sacrificed his suffering, can work. Nothing can be attained without suffering but at the same time, one must begin by sacrificing suffering. Now, decipher what this means.

-- Gurdjieff, in P.D. Ouspensky's 'In Search Of The Miraculous'

We seem to have a choice: should we consciously experience what we call sufferings or should we avoid it through all the means society has become aware of like drugs for example?

[Immanuel Can]

It's up to you, then, whether you want to reform that old block of stuff, pulling out the urgent features, or decide it really wasn't all that important in the first place.

My impression is that you have just had a teenager's meltdown.

Wow. Are you ever wrong.

Yes, yes...you've upset and terrified me. I've flown into a frenzy. Years of therapy will not help me to recover from the trauma.

What I write is what I think and is a summation of where I stand in regard to important issues.

Well, to talk about "important issues" you certainly do not need to make any mention of me, my character, my perceived attitudes, or my hat size. All you need to do is mention an issue, and say something important about it. But I can't tell from that pile of verbiage you've just squirted out where the things are you really care about, and what part is just nonsense you don't. There's certainly plenty of the latter there to obscure the former.

So if you think something's important, say it. Say it without the screed, the ad homs, the bypaths into allegations about my integrity, my personality, my motivations, and so on, which anybody can see are totally irrelevant anyway.

But I think you'll dump the conversation here, because nothing in all that stuff was really important to you anyway. That's my guess. And if that's how it goes, I'm fine with it. But I can't tell yoou what you care about and what you don't. That's up to you.

So do you care about any of it? I guess we'll see.

[promethean75]

I bid thee, what so troubles my Christian brothers that they should quarrel and fight as they do?

[iambiguous]

I bid thee, what so troubles my Christian brothers that they should quarrel and fight as they do?

My guess:

To keep the discussions as far removed from this...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why the Christian God?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and the Christian God

...as they possibly can.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.