We are dealing here yet again with the Lacanian logic of the non-All: God allows me to not to believe in vulgar miracles and to accept the basic rationality of the universe; without this exception, there is nothing I am not ready to believe.

My encounters with Žižek's theology [b:God in Pain: Inversions of Apocalypse|12121640|God in Pain Inversions of Apocalypse|Slavoj Žižek|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1333580938s/12121640.jpg|17090966] and [b:The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity|18913|The Puppet and the Dwarf The Perverse Core of Christianity|Slavoj Žižek|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347299119s/18913.jpg|20258] have been uniformly fecund. As a public atheist/private agnostic I felt the sway of his discussions without the cold "fuck off" of Mr Dawkins. That vibrant ease may have run aground with The Monstrosity of Christ. Perhaps the fault, if not my own dulardness, lies, instead, at its thematic core. Both Žižek and John Milbank parse Hegel in their debate over the role of theology in our times. Shooting from the hip, I would've gathered that Heidegger would've been the more reasoned choice, but then again I'm the one flailing about in the shallow end of the theoretical pool. This was a tough climb and I admit to being annoyed with Slavoj's impertinence and Milbank's uncertain forays into concepts, especially the notion of the dialectic.

The leading citation at the top is a response to Chesterton's notion that if one doesn't beleive in God, then one will beleive in anything. That is a statement of potential and pitfall. ( )

It's now available as an ebook on the MIT press portal http://mitpress-ebooks.mit.edu/product/monstrosity-christ