The first task or group concerns the semiotics of speech-alone talk. One of these would be about unveiling the hidden history of a word. This topic is addressed in chapters 2 and 12.
[The Meaning and End of ‘Religion’ is postmodern.
Postmodernism is founded on Ferdinand de Saussure’s scientific discovery that language consists of two arbitrarily related systems of differences (or symbolic orders).]
[Schoonenberg’s off-hand remark also places Schoonenberg as author into a historical context. His translated book, Man and Sin: A Theological View, was published by University of Notre Dame Press in 1965.
Writing in the 1960’s, Schoonenberg stood on the brink of postmodernism.
Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s book, The Meaning and End of ‘Religion’, was published by Macmillan Press in 1962. Smith’s book detailed how the word ‘religion’ changed meaning over the past several centuries. Smith’s book described the historic alteration of one element of a symbolic order (a system of differences). His work implies that the entire system of differences changes.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[With the concept of the historic twisting of the language in mind, I can appreciate Paul’s list of spiritual sins as ‘sins of the flesh and bones’.
In other words, Paul’s list is not as some quaint mis-designation, where ‘sins of the bones’ are misidentified as ‘sins of the flesh’. It is a flash of intuitive brilliance.
Paul compressed the Old Testament image of ‘flesh versus bones’, as corrupted by the (infra)sovereign religions of the ruling elites of Israel, into a contrast between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’.
St. Paul struggled for expression in a language completely corrupted by the power-serving propaganda of (infra)sovereign religions.]
[Beware of Progressive declarations using the term ‘social’.
The term has been redefined.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[A similar change in the American language occurs today. The (infra)sovereign religions of Progressivism usurp and tailor the specialized language of Christianity to suit their pursuit of sovereign power.
In particular, the word ‘social’, like the ancient word ‘bones’, has been drained of personal meaning and repurposed for organizational manipulation and control.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[Allow me to summarize:
The Old Testament metaphor of ‘flesh and bones’ (designating the essential person) was usurped (from the suprasovereign perspective) and tailored to fit an (infra)sovereign point of view.
The terms went from popular usage to propaganda.
This precisely follows Schoonenberg’s scenario of refusal and usurpation.
A change of the language, the symbolic order of society, became inevitable.
Schoonenberg did not have the analytical tools to explain why Paul opposed the ‘flesh’ against the ‘spirit’ (and not ‘flesh and bones’ against the ‘spirit’). He only noted that the Old Testament opposition applies to one situation and the New Testament opposition applies to another.
In addition, he limited his discussion to warning that the term ‘spirit’ does not simply replace the term ‘bones’.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[As the second Temple moved deeper into the Axial Age, the entire language of Israel shifted in response to this re-application of the flesh and bones metaphor to Society (as well as other usurpations of character-building metaphors).
The Party of the Sovereign changed the meaning of the words.
The Party of the Sovereign destroyed the language.
Paul’s opposition between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ is evidence of a shift in the symbolic order of language.]
[The cultural veiling of key theological words in the constantly tumultuous symbolic orders of the civilized West has been going on for a long time.
The 12th century is 900 years ago. Clearly, some people were already trying to liberate the concept of human freedom from the trappings of Original Sin.
Augustine and the Council of Carthage occurred 1800 years ago. Already, some were trying to liberate love from grace.]
[Schoonenberg never mentioned ‘unreal love’.
He pushed to the edge of postmodernism, but he could not break through a barrier.
That barrier persisted in the 1960s. It was long gone by 2015.
That barrier was the concept that ‘reality was Real’.]
[The televisionaires speak their truth to you, little viewers with golden ornaments.
You cannot talk back, so the television will speak for you. Mainstream TV will portray a character, a victim, some poor trifle that stands for you, the true victim, who cannot talk back to the television. You will feel sympathy for this pathetic creature because you identify with the victim.
You are the victim of the televisionaries, but you do not know it. You only see what is in front of you. You only see images on a screen.
I will consider ‘the so-called truths that they broadcast’, which Christ called a lie, in the next blog.]
