04/16/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KW

[Obligations went from responsibilities to words.

The words of the Law put the majority in bondage.

Common folk (the so-called “deplorables”) were required to meet traditional family and tribal obligations.

They were never adequate when it came to ritual purity. They were good people, but they were cast as losers

All they could hope for was to avoid accusations of think^anti-object, that is, rumors that would ruin one’s life and relations.

Does that sound vaguely familiar for today’s (2017) America?]

04/13/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KV

[Amazingly, the children of Israel returned to their homeland.

Interpretations of the Mosaic Law were formulated, in the centuries before Christ, by an (infra)sovereign religion.

Obligations were formulated according to a think^pro-objectobsessed with ritual purity. The Saduccees and Pharisees became experts in the obligations of ritual purity. This expertise was a ticket to wealth and status.]

04/12/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KU

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[So what happened?

I continue my guess.

Obviously, problems came from establishing a king.

The formation of a sovereign encouraged competition among contending points of view. Sovereign power offered opportunities for exploitation. Royal decrees put people in bondage. The court deprived the people of what they own.

The kingdoms of Israel and Judah failed due to royal immorality and incompetence, as well as the alienation of their own subjects.

Oh, plus an attacking empire.]

04/11/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KT

[Also, the obligations of tribe and family are particular.

My particular tribe and family may have a tendency to micromanage. Petty demands add to time-honored expectations.

Plus, there will always be a slacker in the house.

Plus, the family and tribe may have a debilitating tendency to blame all their woes on one person. Everyone wants to be blameless, so nothing gets done.

The Law of Moses mitigated that.

The Law of Moses held out the possibility of reward (or, at least, not punishment) for the individual with initiative, despite family and tribal obligations.]

04/10/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KS

[In contrast, tribe and family may been trapped in their own word-games.

For example, the tribe is always at war with the rest of the world.

The 10 commandments do not encourage the universal thought experiments.]

04/9/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KR

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Compared to the obligations_3a(2a and the exercises of the heart_2a(1a)) of the family and tribal traditions, the Judaic Law must have felt liberating.

The Law of Moses lays down obligations that are universal. They apply to all. Including everyone in the tribe and family.]

04/6/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KQ

[The mirror of the world_3a was illuminated by unforgiving traditional ways.

Something_2a was either freedom within one’s tribe or family (provided you accept your responsibilities) or slavery to another tribe or family.

So the possibilities inherent in me_1a faced two stark choices.

Weirdly, these choices support the modern notion of “freedom” as not being constrained by pre-existing responsibilities.]

04/5/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KP

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Did traditional Judaic interpretations of God’s law lead to bondage?

Here is my guess.

Before the Laws of Moses, tribal and family traditions predominated.

The choice was between the obligations of tribe and family versus slavery to another tribe or family.]

04/4/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KO

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Here is an easy example.

A parent says to a child:

“You are free as long as you do your homework.”

Then the child does not fulfill “his” responsibility.

As soon as “he” turns on the TV, sitting and watching_2a becomes the something_2a that enslaves “him”.]

04/3/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KN

[What is the actuality_2a that fundamentally transforms freedom_2a(1a) into bondage_2a(1a)?

This ‘something_2a’ emerges from and situates the possibilities inherent in me_1a.

The mirror of the world_3a or the thought experiment_3a brings ‘something_2a’ out of the possibilities inherent in me_1a.

I may think that something_2a enslaves me.

Actually, the relation_3a enslaves me.]

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Monthly Archives: April 2018

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KW

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KV

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KU

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KT

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KS

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KR

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KQ

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KP

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KO

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KN