Decreation

Yikes.

I would ask you to do the same. You're obviously unfamiliar with Weil (and the rest of the topics you naively brought up) and had no intention of discussing anything from the get-go, so why are you even posting in this thread?

no I'm speaking to what she's speaking to and subsequently shooting it down. her presuppositions assume platonism and I'm rejecting platonism so we can't even get to whatever this wammin defines as "decreation."

It's like if I was to ask if your mom knows you're a homosexual.
You would most likely reject the assumption because affirming or denying would validate the assumption that you are a homosexual.

This is hilarious and pathetic at the same time. You're boxing with shadows/attacking a straw-man user. Look, it's simple: if you don't know what you're talking about, just don't write anything.
I half-regret even making this thread, but hopefully you're not indicative of the whole board and someone who isn't talking out of his ass will come along later.

you're laying the charge that I'm using sophomoric drivel.
that's a subjective statement, but even if it wasn't, you are responsible for providing evidence for it being sophomoric.
Calling me sophomoric and then not explaining why you expect people to believe that I'm sophomoric is academically dishonest and is therefore obvious for everyone here to read.
That is actually a better reason to regret making the thread than the one you implied.
but you're on to something here.
what am I strawmanning?
if she has been historically identified by academic orthodoxy as belonging to the school of platonism and socialism, then what is the basis for rejecting her association to those schools of thought?
Thanks.

You're the stereotypical sophomore: a self-assured green horn/know-nothing, a poseur, a comically enthusiastic pseudo-intellectual. You've yet to demonstrate any actual knowledge about anything you mentioned (anyone can link to online encyclopaedias).

You should have been the wiser to, at the very least, have finished reading at least her wikipedia page before you made these retarded posts. But, why would a know-nothing do anything sensible?
The Dunning-Krueger effect in action.

I read a commentary by this person:
fleurmach.com/2016/03/20/simone-weil-decreation/
I think there is some truth to what Weil espouses if we both agree to allow this commentary speak to her.
The experience of pain and suffering in this world to make God's love for us feel real because otherwise we wouldn't experience reciprocated love resonates with a common theme throughout the major prophets in the bible, summed up nicely in 2 Chronicles 7:14
The prophet Ezekiel also uses the comparison of Israel having started as a woman covered in her own blood being rescued from out of the bondage of the Egyptians who then subsequently proceeded to play the whore once she became opulent by God's comeliness and went back to being put into the very same bondage from which she was saved.
This is great. God communed with us face to face by manifesting himself as a man stripped partially of his divinity as a means of communicating an aspect of his love for us. Sure, God definitely comes at the disobedient in anger, but to show his love for us, he became a man and mounted a cross rather than a throne for us.
He humbled himself in the same way that he had to humble us for punishment of our transgressions.

Having read the thread it is my opinion that you didn't want any actual discussion nor opposing opinions on the subject, but rather wanted a circle-jerk of praise for your pet project. Maybe you should try again somewhere else.

What about the rest of that excerpt though? Isn't she just rationalising masochism?

I wouldn't say so because masochism implies that we have the principal to participate or not participate in self-abasement whereas chastisement categorically implies God's principal and subsequent administration of it.
Satan for example can act as God's agent as implied by Job 1 in the explanation of God's hedge of protection.

At least she's cute.