Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 US
[The use of the law in the name of ‘social justice’ serves as an example.
The use manifests the sin of pride through overt displays of scruples.
This is called virtue signaling.]
04/17/19
Category Archives: New Look at Tradition Views
02/15/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TB
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[The prior blog reminds me of the quandry posed by Decartes’ formula, “I think, therefore I am”.
“I think” goes with ideas inside of me. “Therefore, I am” asserts the existence of the thinker (as a container of I think).]
08/31/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 OP
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[True conversion occurs when a feature in the mirror of the world offers the truth. The something2H that appeals to a potential in me1H does not contain value1V.
Value1V conflicts with desire1H.
This discrepancy calls for a choice2V.]
06/26/18
06/25/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MT
[… that obligations3H(2 for the intersecting nested forms, corresponds to:
Mirror of the world3H(my heart2
In the intersection, my heart2 is the single actuality of my choice2V and ‘something’ contextualized by the mirror of the world2H.
Words3H(2H, excuses3H(2H and resentments3H(2H correspond to the latter actuality.
They still cry out, “I am not responsible.”
But how irresponsible is that?
In my heart, I know that the values that I have been choosing1V no longer represent the desires inherent in me1H.
In our heart, I know the truth that I cannot accept:
My resentments are co-opposed to bondage.]
06/12/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MK
[How does this resonate with Schoonenberg’s claim that we have the freedom to serve God or Satan?
Freedom goes with both the potential of the person1a plus an actuality, the something contextualized by the thought experiment2a.
The thought experiment3a reflects illumination by social elites (or, in general, the Zeitgeist).]
05/21/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 LV
[How is this possible?
Americans are ‘free’. However, voters have consistently chosen ‘somethings2a’ that have empowered the Central Government (State and City governments no longer rule independent of the Center).
Or have they?
Their votes against the aggressive (infra)sovereign party go to the the other party.
This other party takes the passive common folk stance of meeting ritual demands in order to avoid accusations by the (infra)sovereign party.
Big Government Liberalism wins either way.
How crazy is that?]
05/18/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 LU
[Here is a funny twist.
The elites in one political party openly represent the (infra)sovereign religion of Big Government Liberalism.
The elites in the other political party say that they do not belong to the religion, but behave as is if they do.
The same co-opposition of words3a(2a and bondage2a(1a) that marked Judaism at the time of Jesus also marks the Public Cult of Progressivism today.
05/17/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 LT
[Turn on Progressive TV to see a parade similar to the Second Temple.
The elites of Big government Liberalism demand ritual purity. They demand that the average citizen give up “his” stuff. They say that the average citizen does not get along. They have buckets of nasty labels for the deplorables.
They say that the average citizen is intolerant unless “he” conforms to the multitudinous ritual decrees of the Progressive state, universities and various other sovereign-loving affiliations.]
05/16/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 LS
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Does this sound vaguely familiar?
Do the previous blogs sound familiar in contemporary America?
The average American citizen just wants to get along. The average citizen just wants to keep “his” stuff.]