No, I don´t try to defend my beliefs to you.

Then what exactly is going on here?

The point of looking at your belief's real weak points is that it's easy to find strong points to attack, and thus one can feel like they've engaged with their doubts when in fact they have avoided them.

Is asking us to find the weak spots of your particular flavor of Christianity attacking a weak point, or attacking a strong point? If you look back over your comments, you will note a number of times when you talk about not expecting people to understand, or pointing out that you don't believe the various things that people are pointing out as weak spots in other forms of Christianity. It seems to me that this allows you to claim that you have exposed your beliefs to attack and them have survived--when, in fact, that is not so.

To elaborate, consider the following:

The amount of upovotes you got here proves to anyone actually reading my comments and understanding them, just how little you actually pay attention to my what I actually say and just how pointless it is for a theist to try to discuss religion here on LW.

Is this what it looks like to attack a weak point, or a strong point? Was the goal here to reach mutual understanding, or to show that LWers aren't capable of discussing religion?

Note that in the comment that started this all, you claimed that you had found some weak spots on your own. Why, then, are you not talking about those? Suppose you knew that at the end of this conversation you would be a convinced atheist, and you were trying to minimize the amount of time it would take to get to that conclusion. Would you have said the same things in the same way?

(I apologize for the Bulverism, but in this context it seems unavoidable. Just asking you to search your motivations doesn't seem likely to succeed, because I want to raise this specific hypothesis.)