04/20/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 LA

[Plus, there are three types of desire: the desire to approach, the desire to avoid, and the desire to not be bothered.

I cannot approach my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.

I cannot avoid my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.

But, I can desire not to be bothered by it.

Weirdly, this supports the modern notion of “freedoms” as negative rights. The original American constitution establishes the freedom not to be constrained by the state (religion).]

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 thinkanti-object, that is, rumors that would ruin one’s life and relations.

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

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.]

04/3/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KN

[What is the actuality2a that fundamentally transforms freedom2a(1a) into bondage2a(1a)?

This ‘something2aemerges from and situates the possibilities inherent in me1a.

The mirror of the world3a or the thought experiment3a brings ‘something2a’ out of the possibilities inherent in me1a.

I may think that something2a enslaves me.

Actually, the relation3a enslaves me.]