Granqvist's work is truly inspiring. Just read his article from 2014 about God as an attachment object, summary text. It lands in the middle of what I'm thinking about!

Still, it's hard to resist, or nuance, just don't think about what…

My own approach has to do with regression, and the inherent nature of the doctrine, in the first place. And then relates to a previous idea in him, that it is difficult to know whether the follower "becomes so" because of the commitment to doctrine, or if it goes the other way, or the balance of forces between these two.

Granqvist writes about secular society replacing God as a buzz-sucking parent. And that in unsafe societies, people are more religious. Maybe not just the way it happened?

One disadvantage of the attachment statement is, of course, that it does not impress followers. As Farias or Peters write in their articles. That followers tend to see their problems as "spiritual process." In this case, it is more difficult to fend off if you instead tie it first and foremost to the doctrine and its field of tension.

Farias criticizes Granqvist's duck reasoning. But that's where Gr has more sympathy. I truly believe that god is absolutely central. But other aspects, which can be described by omnipotence regression-pressed/tempted terms…

Maybe I want to stay more mentioned psychoanalysis, the conflict perspective?

Then I realize, when reading above all Gr, that some scientists of his kind and at his level I can not become. I want to read, research, but write more essayistically.

Interesting thing about God… I sat earlier in the day and thought how to formulate myself around the "object"

Gr also writes about research on Jewish people, and their secure connection, even subliminally, it must get a couple of lines in the essay

Plus, I'll take an impression of how to write, and summarize, in the three articles I read tonight