Summary of text [comment] pages 80 and 81
In the Old Testament, ‘flesh’ is opposed to ‘blood and bones’.
Flesh and bones designates the whole person.
The New Testament presents a different opposition: ‘Flesh’ is opposed to ‘spirit’.
This opposition does not overlay exactly with the ‘flesh as opposed to bones’ terminology of the Old Testament.
Summary of text [comment] page 80
‘Evil attitudes and dispositions’ allow us to appreciate what is involved with the Scripture’s use of the words ‘flesh’, ‘concupiscence’, ‘bondage under the devil’ and ‘bondage under sin’.
[These all describe actuality emerging from possibility.
Ted Peter’s 1994 book Radical Evil portrays this. His work has already been analyzed with the nested forms.
Concupiscence belongs to the situation level of an interscope precisely as actuality emerging from and situating possibility (that is, concupiscence2(1)).
Indeed, the origin of the word ‘concupiscence’ is ‘the state of being2 with Cupid1’.
The complete situation level of the interscoping form follows:
Self-justification3b(the state of being…2b( potential …with Cupid1b))]
Summary of text [comment] page 80
[I designate the specification of conscience as lacking freedom as ‘consciencelacking’.
The terms ‘powers’, ‘tendencies’, ‘instincts’ and ‘passions’ enumerate features the dispositions. These features may be distinguished but not separated from consciencespecified.
Sinful acts consolidate the realm of possibility, promoting the specification of conscience and the narrowing of dispositions.
To me, it seems, contra Schoonenberg, that an integration may accompany sinful acts, but that integration coincides with the idea of an evil attitude and an inability for the good.
Sinful integration yearns to exclude thinkdivine and consciencefree.
But it cannot last long, since …
… lawessential eventually comes into play.]
Summary of text [comment] page 80
An evil attitude accompanies sinful action, combining with our inability for the good.
Every sin produces a persistent attitude that further consolidates sinful drives and inclinations. Persistent attitudes resist personal integration. One’s powers, tendencies, instincts, and passions demand their own satisfactions, even at the expense of the total value of the individual and community.
[A particular sinful act may be forgotten, but sinful attitudes remain. The sinful act substantiates the sinner’s normal context. The act habituates the sinner’s potential.
This will be reflected in the way the person recites what is good and what is bad.
As the human acts and thinks, the entire intersecting nested form alters.
As actions and thoughts emerge from and situate possibilities, the possibilities become more and more pronounced.
The dispositions become trained.
The conscience becomes more specified. I label this consciencespecified.
Murder emerges from and situates the attitude of hatred.
Impurity emerges from and situates the attitude of narcissism.]
Summary of text [comment] page 80
Schoonenberg claimed that actions are always more than their external manifestations. They are more than their limited content.
Each external manifestation passes away, but not completely. A long lasting disposition or attitude remains.
After murder, hatred lingers. After impurity, egoistic desire agitates.
[How to say this in terms of nested forms?
Consider the intersection describing the message underlying the word ‘religion’.
The intersection of two nested forms yields a single actuality: What is virtue and what is sin.
This single actuality is the fusion of two: human action and human thoughts.
Human acts and human thoughts are always contextualized by justifications (thinkgroup_or_divine) and admissions (lawaccept_or_deny). Human acts always situate both conscience and dispositions.]
Summary of text [comment] page 80
[Once we have adopted a thinkgroup that ordinates us to seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, no matter whether these pleasures or pains are material or immaterial, we are hooked by that particular religion, even if we deny that ‘it is a religion’.
We step into Schoonenberg’s analysis of sin.
The inclination to evil is a sequel to sin.]
[Come to think of it, sensible construction based on private or closely shared social constructions comes in handy for taking advantage of the ideological frameworks of others.
Hey, I can use widely held social constructions in order to cultivate my own wealth or status.
For example, consider the ambitions of state academics.
They pretend that their sensible constructions are not built on social constructions. They pretend that they are ‘not religious’, because that is the current opiate of the masses. Plus, their closely shared religious beliefs are unlikely to be challenged.
They can proselytize without risk.]
