Category Archives: Defining Religion

03/31/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AU

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[Ironically, later in the Old Testament, ‘the bones’ became ‘the symbol of the sovereign and the religious leaders’.

The metaphor was hijacked by the elites. They veiled the original meaning of the words with new interpretations. The ruling elites contextualized themselves. They justified their sovereign power. They were not building the character of the people. They were usurping it.

They called themselves ‘the blood and bones’ of Israel.

The bones were ‘the objects that bring all subjects into organization’.

This blood defined the elite’s will to power.]

03/30/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AT-2

[The person who chains his conscience to a thinkgroup lacks ‘the freedom to be righteous before the Lord’. That person has no bones. That person is spineless.

At the same time, the person cannot deny the feeling in “her” bones. The bones long to stand righteous before the Lord.

Therefore, the opposition between flesh and bones serves as a metaphor for the exclusive yet interpellating relation between consciencelacking and consciencefree.

The flesh may be sold into the bondage of sin. The bones cannot be sold. The bones always want to lift the flesh back up, back to where it is supposed to be, standing righteous before the Lord.

What a remarkable way to portray the conflict within us.]

03/29/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AT-1

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[The early Old Testament image of ‘the flesh sold into the bondage of sin’ calls the person. It calls the person’s bones. It is not a metaphor for society.

The bones long to be free. They long to be righteous before the Lord. Here, ‘bones’ call to mind consciencefree in the intersecting nested form portrayed above. Thinkdivine interpellates ‘the bones’. Thinkgroup calls the ‘flesh’.]

03/28/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AS

[In considering these two applications, I capture a key difference between an infrasovereign and a suprasovereign religion.

The metaphor of blood and bones, applied to the person, builds character.

The same metaphor, applied to society, interpellates the person into an (infra)sovereign religion.

One tells the person to breathe, because the flesh, blood and bones belongs to the person.

The other paralyzes. The blood and bonds belongs to the sovereign. The people are weak and fleshy. Also, the sovereign serves as artificial lungs.

This raises the question:

When I hear the metaphor of ‘flesh versus bones’ how am I to tell the difference between the two options?]

03/27/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AR

[May I apply that metaphor to human society?

I can imagine a thinkpro-object that tells the person that powerful figures of the sovereign religion are the bones. The sovereign scaffolds a weak and fleshy people. The bones are the sovereign support of society.

I can imagine a thinkpro-object that tells the person that powerful figures of the sovereign religion are the blood. The sovereign balances the passions (heat) and fears (coolness) of the subjects. The blood is the sovereign working in society.]

03/14/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AI

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.]

03/8/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AF-1

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.]

03/6/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AD

[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.]