12/23/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 DY

Summary of text [comment] page 78

The limited goods (that a sinful person chooses) have a tendency to slip away. A sinful person may cling to a shred of virtue. But only for so long.

Schoonenberg wrote that fallen man is unable, without grace, to keep the commandments of the natural law for a long time.

[Why did Schoonenberg refer to ‘the commandments of the natural law’ and not ‘the divine law’?

Does Schoonenberg conflate thinkdivine and lawessential?

Or does his intuition implicitly comply with the explicit model of the intersection of virtue and sin?]

12/22/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 DX-2

[The hero stands for Progressive television producers (whose way of talk exploits the viewers, since they cannot talk back). The victim stands for the viewer (who cannot talk back to the television, therefore is a victim).

The expectation is that the victim-viewer will join the television producer-exploiter in a mutual hatred of the one designated as the anti-object. ‘The bad one’, in many these shows, stands in for those who do not watch TV and mind their own business.

Thus, in contradiction to Jesus’ words in John 15:5, the so-called Progressive mainstream American TV portrays a world where both producer and viewer love one another while both hating their fellow “man” (the stock character accused of the projector’s moral failures).]

10/21/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CQ

[All interventions by the postreligious (enlightenment) sovereign religions are ‘we win and you lose’ for traditional religions.

Once intentions are more consequential than consequences, then consequences may be blamed on scapegoats.

When the intervention improves the actuality, it verifies the ideological slogan.

When the intervention worsens the actuality, it verifies the ideological slogan.

What slogan?

We are the good ones who must identify and destroy the bad ones.]

10/4/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CE

[In our current Lebenswelt, humans no longer have these options, even when the band itself is specialized (say royalty or blacksmiths).

Concupiscence has been unloosed.

To me, this unloosing resonates with Rene Girard’s descriptions of ‘unconstrained mimetic desire’.

Cupid is the god of mimetic desire.

After the first singularity, religious traditions wrestled with concupiscence, at first through thinkgroup (which originally served as thinkpost-first-singularity for a band or a specialization), then through a slow awakening to a trans-thinkgroup, which I label thinkdivine].

08/12/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 AY

[Televisionaries transformed ‘love (agape)’ into ‘something that does not proceed from grace and that requires no conversion’. They have transformed ‘freedom’ into ‘celebrity and slavery’.

The real victims are the unsuspecting folk who do not watch Progressive television.

They have no idea what is going on, especially when they are suddenly branded as ‘bad ones’.]

08/11/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 AX

[Progressive television – ideological broadcasting – redefines ‘freedom’ as ‘without obligations’.

Yet, when the hero saves the victim (standing in for the disempowered viewer), the victim is emotionally obligated to the hero (standing in for the television producers and their Progressive religions).

These redefinitions produce an idol of unreal love (where television elites and disempowered viewers are united in hatred against a foe).

These redefinitions produce differential freedoms (the television elites are not obligated to the viewer victims, but the viewer victims are emotionally obligated to the elites).]

08/9/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 AV

[Clearly, the televisionaries redefine the term ‘love (agape)’ so that ‘it no longer proceeds from grace and no longer requires conversion’.

Such a redefinition allows a person to use the word ‘love (agape)’ along with the word ‘free’, where ‘free’ means ‘without obligation’. The movie ‘hero’ is ‘free’ to ‘love the victim’. But this is not a love of equal standing. The victims can never repay their obligations.

Again, this expresses the attitude of royalty.

The hero obligates the victims by rescuing them. Plus, the hero reduces the victim’s freedom, or, should I say ‘self-esteem’.

Even stranger, the rescued victims are less obligated to defend themselves. The hero will take care of them.

Ah, royal patronage.]