06/8/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2R

Summary of text [comment] page 71

[In sum, ‘the idea of natural love’ is pure propaganda.

It moves the interpellated person away from what the human evolved to be.

Where does one see this idea propagated in contemporary society?

On television and in the movies?

In popular books and magazines?

Wake up.

Does anyone writing for popular television, movies, books and magazines suffer the consequences of misleading their consumers?

Let the buyer beware.

‘Natural love’ sells, just like perfume.]

06/2/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2P

Summary of text [comment] page 71

[A brief review of male-female pair bonding is in order.

The human male evolved to be the female’s helper.

This adaptation could not take place without assurance by the female of the male’s paternity of the children.

The female evolved a hard to fake behavior that provides this crucial assurance.

She put the male in charge of the family.]

06/1/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2O-2

[On the one hand, the basis of ‘something’ (for love and self-destruction in the previous blog) can never be limited to feelings of attraction, arising from the so-called natural dispositions.

On the other hand, ‘feelings of attraction’ could be something that others call ‘the love arising from the natural dispositions’.

In sum, what others proclaim to be natural design3a substitute for ‘God’s creative design3a’.]

05/31/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2O-1

Summary of text [comment] page 71

[With substitutions, I begin to approach, but do not arrive at, delineating a contrast between ‘grace’ and ‘nature’.

How about this scenario:

Paralleling grace is ‘a state of supernatural and natural love’.

Paralleling self-destruction is ‘a state of not supernatural and not natural love’.]

05/26/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2M-3

[Paralleling self-destruction:

‘Something called ‘love’3V’ brings ‘I (imaging the lover) and the object of my love (imaging the ‘something I love’)2V’ into relation with ‘my potential for conscience, ‘what I love’, and self1V’.

Here, ‘the object of my love2V’ stands in for ‘myself (the one who I recognize on the basis of ‘something’)2V’.

How close is that to: ‘I’ must be ‘whoever my love says I am’?]

05/25/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2M-2

[Paralleling grace:

‘Love or the Holy Spirit3V’ brings ‘I (imaging the Father) and the one I love (imaging the Son)2V’ into relation with ‘my potential for conscience, ‘what I love’ and self1V’.

Here, ‘the one I love2V’ stands in for ‘myself (the one who I recognize)2V’.

How close is that to: I can love the other as myself?]