Forsaken by Mankind

reply to post by Aphorism


Here is a more complete reply, now that I have time. Forgive me for the way I quote your words.

You said: "Such a lens makes things bleak and lifeless, because that is what it teaches about things that aren't in accordance with its rules. How else can someone look at another person and condemn him without knowing him? The opposite is the case, and it is the lens that is bleak and lifeless. "

Ah, you must not misinterpret my words, or at least try not to. I condemn no one. The perception I speak of adds to the idea that one should have a meaningful love in looking at man, as all man has been condemned, a rejoicing love considering that all men are called to salvation, and a sorrowful, patient love for those who reject the invitation.

The ones who fill me with sorrow are those who ignore the love, or reject it without even knowing it. That is the majority of the world.

Then there are the few. The poets, the lovers, the wise, the silent. They hold sway often only to the few, to the many they are an obstacle, as the Cornerstone was.

reply to post by backcase

Here is a more complete reply, now that I have time. Forgive me for the way I quote your words.

You said: "Such a lens makes things bleak and lifeless, because that is what it teaches about things that aren't in accordance with its rules. How else can someone look at another person and condemn him without knowing him? The opposite is the case, and it is the lens that is bleak and lifeless. "

Ah, you must not misinterpret my words, or at least try not to. I condemn no one. The perception I speak of adds to the idea that one should have a meaningful love in looking at man, as all man has been condemned, a rejoicing love considering that all men are called to salvation, and a sorrowful, patient love for those who reject the invitation.

The ones who fill me with sorrow are those who ignore the love, or reject it without even knowing it. That is the majority of the world.

Then there are the few. The poets, the lovers, the wise, the silent. They hold sway often only to the few, to the many they are an obstacle, as the Cornerstone was.

I didn't mean to imply that it was you doing the condemning. I was suggesting that it is the lens, or the worldview, that requires it.

No man has been condemned, and nothing has shown us that man is condemned to anything, lest it be by his fellow brothers and sisters. I also don't agree that we should spread our love so thin, apply it everywhere we can, thereby making loving and being loved meaningless. I reject that love because it means nothing; and I ignore it because it provides no content for me to love. It is empty love, and therefor, not love at all.

What reason would you have to love me, for instance? What have I done to deserve this empty gift?

reply to post by Aphorism


I love you because we are alike. I love you because we share this human experience which God has given us both. I love you because I know the height of love and the depth of sorrow, and I know that you, I, and all people, are capable of such. I love because God moves me to love. I weep because God moves me to weep. In this world we are to reflect God's countenance, and I love you as a being capable of spreading such light.