Category Archives: The Evolution of Talk

The “evolution of talk” covers the evolution of the human capacity for language as well as the modes in which that capacity is expressed. Aspects are discussed in chapters 1,2 and 7 of An Archaeology of the Fall.

04/24/17

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

[Paul was not a man given to over-indulgence of the appetites. He did not sell his flesh into bondage for material or sensual pleasure. He was a man given to righteousness.

So what did he do?

He sold his bones into bondage for an immaterial pleasure.

He sold his bones, which, in the Old Testament, long to stand before the Lord in righteousness, to a thinkgroup and consciencelacking that had already taken the metaphor and turned it into an instrument for propaganda.

The Pharisees and the Sadducees were all about ritual demands.

They were the “bones” that held Israel together. They were “bloody” servants of ‘the object that brings all subjects into organization’.]

04/20/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BG

[Wilfred Cantwell Smith showed how the word ‘religion’ veils its history.

Smith wanted get rid of the word ‘religion’ in order to bury its history.

Why?

The diverse flows of the Progressive movement had secured sovereign power. They had become (infra)sovereign religions. Since each party within the movement defined itself as ‘not religious’, despite its cult status, the term ‘religion’ became a liability.

Smith’s book is a testimony. The Progressives established their sovereign religion in the 1960s. This marks the time when the Federal Government of America became a sovereign religion.]

04/18/17

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

[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.]

04/17/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BE

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.]

04/7/17

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

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.]

04/6/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AY

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’.]

04/5/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AX

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.]