Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 VL
[Obligations3(2 put ‘the potentials inherent in me1’ into context.
It makes a difference whether those obligations3(2 are responsibilities3(2 or words3(2.]
05/14/19
Category Archives: Co-oppositions
04/23/19
04/8/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UL
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
[Law enters through thought3V(2 then influences deeds2(1V)).
Sin enters through words3H(2 then produces bondage2(1H).]
04/5/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UK
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
[A second co-opposition composes the vertical axis.
This is: Thought3V(2 and deed2(1V).
This vertical co-opposition intersects the horizontal co-oppositions of either responsibility3H(2 & freedom2(1H)) or words3H(2 & bondage2(1H)).
My heart2 is the single actuality that arises from the congruence of two co-oppositions.]
04/4/19
03/14/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TU
[Engines serve as a metaphor. Different engines work in different contexts. They serve different purposes. Consequently, they are comparable but not interchangeable.
Here, a locomotive serves as an example.]
03/13/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TT
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Is there a parallel between heart2 and what is good and what is bad2?
Yes, they both are modeled as an intersection.
No, they are supported by exclusive normal contexts. So, the actualities within each are different.
My choice2V and something (emerging from a potential in me)2H are not interchangeable with human thoughts2V and human actions2H, even though they may be compared.]
03/12/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TS
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[I can now expand the locations where the terms “sin”, “law” and “death” apply.
The sites are:
“Law” goes with ‘I, seat of choice3V’. “Law” goes with ‘lawessential3H(2’.
“Sin” goes with ‘the mirror of the world3H’ and ‘thought experiment3H’. “Sin” goes with “think3V”.]
03/11/19
03/8/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TQ
[Despite the inadequate wording, what a resonance imply?
Maybe, what is good and what is bad2( free will1V)) complements heart2(free will1V)).
Would this fit Schoonenberg’s claim that free will becomes liberty when deeds are bound to God and becomes servitude when deeds are bound to sin, law or death?]