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: Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in
Human psychology evolved under in the social milieu of constrained complexity. Currently, humans live in unconstrained complexity. What has this done to our minds? These topics are addressed in various parts of An Archaeology of the Fall, particularly in chapters 8C and 11B.
04/16/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UR
[St. Paul’s admission that ‘the law induces sin’ cuts many ways. Prohibition may awaken the desire for sin. Sin may awaken the desire for prohibition.]
04/15/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UQ
[Law-filled thoughts may justify cruelty, self-dealing, anxiety-relief and lack of faith. The law washes these monstrosities over with perfection of the letter of the law.
Law fixates on the rules. The rules may be misconstrued in order to rendezvous with the sinful attractor in my dying heart. The way that I fulfill the rules may provide me with the pleasures that I crave.]
04/12/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UP
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
[When thoughts3V(2 are made rigid by scruples, then deeds2(1V)) freeze the heart in a fixation on what must not be done.
Failure seems to be unavoidable. My own deeds violate my conscience. They can never be perfect. They can never fulfill the command.
I do the deeds that I do not want to do even as I do the deeds that I do.]
04/11/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UO
Sin-filled words blaspheme, self-justify, and express pride. Sin, illuminated in the mirror of the world, attracts. I am drawn to look into the mirror. Sin is glamorous and fashionable.
04/3/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UI
[Responsibility tends to exclude the normal context belonging to words, and visa versa.]
04/2/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UH
[Freedom and bondage are exclusively opposed even though they are both exercises of the heart2(1H).
What does this imply?
Since exclusion is a property of the realm of normal context, each of these terms co-oppose an independent normal context.
Freedom2(1H)) co-opposes responsibility3H(2.
Bondage2(1H)) co-opposes words3H(2.]
04/1/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UG
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
Schoonenberg joins the term “heart” with the terms “free” and “bondage”. The heart may be free or in bondage to sin, law or death.
03/28/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UE
[What does this observation imply?
Did the word “free” shift within a changing symbolic order?]
03/27/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UD
Is there a difference between the terms free will and free choice?
Augustine wrote of a free will in contrast to a slave will, even though both retained free choice.
Anselm contrasted simple choice (arbitrium) and Christian liberty (libertas). This does not quite fit Augustine’s opposition of free and slave wills.