Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
...still emphasizing the distinctiveness of each person in relation. I don't
see such a strong problem with emphasizing individual choice,
rather I see the encouragement and the ideal as being one that's always being one that's choosing to do the best for the other.
I think that has more to do with the
transcending objective nature of human goods. I mean
it does have to do with humanity,
but I can understand how
theologically one can still affirm certain rights as...
I haven't read the book, but I know he has written on this...
and trinitarian community.
In the perspective that I'm putting forward
human freedom is
the mode
in which we practice faith
in the goods
that God gives us, whether these goods be human relationships or the divine
human relationship itself.
Whether these goods be material or spiritual
or relate to the non-human creation.
That
when one then
attaches right
to freedom,
again I come back to this sort of misplacement.
One is
singling out the mode of participation as something
having a kind of
priority in the circumstance,
an independent conceptual
moral focus.
And that
I'm not going to do.
And if I differ from him
it would probably be on that point
rather than
necessarily the relational one.
But I do think
my point about judicalizing human relations
that I think happens with…
even when people are not oriented to demanding their own rights, they're demanding rights
of their neighbors.
That still to me as a theologian smacks of judicalizing human relationships.
It's what the
reformers, both
continental and English would call..�