Also, Judaism opens the way for my viewing 3-74 in terms of Spinoza's immanent God, developed out of the Shekhina and the Cabala. A modified Spinozaism, that includes personality and pronoia and planning. Have I not said, "Transcendent deity is definitely out?" This would include Christianity and Gnosticism and of course theism. Not to mention (ugh) deism. Anyway, how could Valis be Christ, inasmuch as it is Christian dogma that Christ now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven; i.e. he is not here.
Ah. The doctrine of vicarious atonement is more repugnant to me than the doctrine of original sin. And worst of all, is the idea (connected with the doctrine of vicarious atonement) that God would demand a sacrifice, i.e. the crucifixion, of his own Son which is to say Himself, which is nonsense, brutal and against all reason. There is no way I can be convinced that the notion of God demanding a ransom or slaughtered human or god-human sacrifice to redeem man is a reasonable idea; it is far more barbaric than the talion law of Judaism. Here is where I balk, and since the doctrines of original sin and that of the vicarious atonement form a unitary view that is the very basis of Christianity -- well, it is beyond me, and I still say that Paul misuses Wisdom 3:1. We are not all dead, Ws says; only the evil think that (cf). If you want barbarism there you have it. Also, "This is my body; eat of it -- this is my blood; drink of it" -- although this is good mythic ritual practice I wonder if it can be sustained in the world today; viz: eating the body of the dead god and drink-