The Ego And His Own - pg. 48

So Feuerbach instructs us that, "if one only inverts
speculative philosophy, always makes the predicate the subject,
and so makes the subject the object and principle, one has the
undraped truth, pure and clean." Herewith, to be sure, we lost
the narrow religious standpoint, lost the God, who from
this standpoint is subject; but we take in exchange for it the other
side of the religious standpoint, the moral standpoint.
Thus we no longer say "God is love," but "Love is divine."
If we further put in place of the predicate "divine" the equivalent
"sacred," then, as far as concerns the sense, all the old comes back
again. According to this, love is to be the good in man,
his divineness, that which does him honor, his true humanity
(it "makes" him Man for the first time," makes for the first time a
man out of him). So then it would be more accurately worded thus:
Love is what is human in man, and what is inhuman is loveless
egoist. But precisely all that which Christianity and with it speculative
philosophy (i.e., theology) offers as the good, the absolute, is to
self-ownership simply not the good (or, what means the same, it is
only the good). Consequently, by the transformation of
the predicate into the subject, the Christian essence (and
it is the predicate that contains the essence, you know) would only
be fixed yet more oppressively. God and the divine would entwine
themselves all the more inextricably with me. To expel God from
his heaven and to rob him of his "transcendence" cannot yet support a
claim of complete victory, if therein he is only chased into the human
breast and gifted with indelible immanence. Now they say,
"The divine is the truly human!".