In her essays, she critiques humanism as the source of giving primacy to humanity in love rather than persons, and calls such a love unchristian and actually impossible (God loves us as individuals, knowing each intimately, and commands love for one's "neighbor" and "the least of these" and "one another", not love for humanity, which could never be truly sincere or intense). This ideological primacy, she feels, is why communists could so shamelessly butcher persons for the sake of humanity. This got me thinking about the Filioque: in Catholicism, God's essence produces (dual procession here is about the Spirit having one principle--Latin for origin or source--in the Father and the Son, according the RCC Catechism) the Spirit's existence (or person), and since the Father and Son have one essence, they produce the Spirit together (Saint Photius the Great, in Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, famously argued that if the Spirit's existence is produced by the Father's and Son's essence, that would mean the Spirit is produced by his own essence unless his essence is different from theirs). This established a very firm primacy of essence over person the west (in Orthodoxy, the Spirit's existence is produced by the Father's existence--"hypostasis" in Greek--not his essence), which unfortunately wasn't reversed until the advent of existentialism, which, unfortunately, being an outgrowth of humanism (which replaced God as locus with humanity as locus), replaces the locus of humanity with the locus of self.
In her essays, she critiques humanism as the source of giving primacy to humanity in love rather than persons...
Dude weed lmao
>(God loves us as individuals, knowing each intimately, and commands love for one's "neighbor" and "the least of these" and "one another", not love for humanity, which could never be truly sincere or intense).
Another example of how amazing and awesome the bible is
Yup!
This sounds cute but it's not really humanly possible. God is cool and all-knowing so he can do it probably but humans are not.
It's not humanly possible to know all people intimately so it's not humanly possible to love everyone equally. That means that if we have to choose we will value the lives of those we perceive we are like better than the lives of those we perceive we are less like.
The only way to love "the least of those" is to abstract the common elements in all people. Thus we will come to value that which is the lowest common denominator as "human".
You love those you encounter equally. To love those you aren't even aware of is, of course, impossible (hence why she is somewhat critical of giving to faceless needy). You love the person for being God's image.
But people can only function in a structured society because they can think abstractly of groups of people.
But if you couldn't feel "love" for all people then is it for example OK to steal strangers' food to feed your own familiy? The average person would be instinctively morally repulsed by the though. Is that wrong?
People would die to protect their home town or home country etc. Is it not because they "love" people they don't even know?
Is it not as good to give to the faceless as it is to give to people you know if you think it will actually benefit them? I mean really?
Youre beyond the shortsighted christian concept of compassion. Just wanted you to know that.
Go read Darkness at Noon by Koestler
>spirit, existence, essence
These words don't mean anything to me.
You don't steal because it is defying God.