01/5/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 EH

[This raises a question: What happens to an intersection when the contradictions that sustain it are resolved?

As long as contradictions between the two actualities are not resolved, the intersection exists. The single actuality of ‘what is virtue and what is sin’ exists as long as human thought and human action contains contradictions that undermine an interscope.

As these contradictions are resolved ‘what is good and what is bad’ no longer stands as a single actuality composed of a pair of contradictory actualities.

The intersection resolves, turning back into an interscope.

But now, the person is either totally good or totally evil.]

01/2/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 EE

Summary of text [comment] page 79

The inability to love brings about the inability for complete goodness.

Our bodies and our materiality produce diverse tendencies, each striving for a partial good. These diverse tendencies contradict one another. If there is to be harmony, then the contradictions eventually resolve. This, in itself, is not evil.

We personally mold ourselves by ordering, integrating and unifying our drives and powers. Love facilitates this. Any other attitude facilitates the promotion of some partial goods at the expense of others.

12/30/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 ED

Summary of text [comment] page 79

Without love, we (humans) cannot integrate our many disparate dispositions.

Sinful acts lead to the inability to love. They deprive us of grace.

Without grace, the sinner cannot integrate his dispositions. The sinner cannot pull himself together.

The sinner is always missing the mark. Plus, he is cruelly depriving himself of participation in a drama that is ultimately far more interesting than the inevitable narcissism of fixating on one’s own dispositions.

[This drama plays out in the person’s movement in the field of ‘the object that brings us all into relation’].

12/29/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 EC

Summary of text [comment] pages 78 and 79

The limited goods of ‘loving your family’ and ‘loving your tribe’ are closed moralities. They do not extend beyond their limits. Jesus pointed that out in Matthew 5:43. The inability to love brings about an inability for complete goodness.

12/28/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 EB

[Consider the unity of human thought and human action.

Seek pleasure. I mean, seek the pleasure that is offered by the thinkgroup. Belonging may be one of those pleasures. If the mob is doing it, I can do it too.

Avoid pain. I mean, avoid the pain that is threatened by the thinkgroup. Perhaps, a thinkgroup may offer ways to shift pain to others. Don’t be the scapegoat. Scapegoat others to shift blame from yourself.

Sinful behavior, emerging from and situating consciencelacking, plus one’s disposition to seek pleasure and avoid pain, has consequences.

These consequences, of course, are unintended.

They are ignored in lawdenial.

The great tradition of natural law, lawessential, remembers ‘those unintended consequences’.

Lawacceptance serves to keep those memories alive. Their maxims constitute the laws of nature that Schoonenberg refers to.

Thus sinful ‘man’ is unable to keep commandments of the natural law.]

12/27/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 EA

Summary of text [comment] page 78

[Sin and virtue in this model label the single actuality composed of two nested forms; one pertaining to human actions and one pertaining to human thoughts.

Schoonenberg conflates ‘the commandments of the natural law’ with ‘the divine way’?

How does this work?

The sinner develops or adopts a thinkgroup that deviates from thinkdivine. It is easy to do because thinkgroups belong to the Zeitgeist.

Many thinkgroups bring sinful acts into relation with the conscience. In doing so, thinkgroup justifies sin in a way that favors certain pleasures or avoids certain pains.

What body would resist?

Consciencelacking is directly trained by the normal context of thinkgroup.

The dispositions are indirectly habituated through each transgression.]

12/23/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 DY

Summary of text [comment] page 78

The limited goods (that a sinful person chooses) have a tendency to slip away. A sinful person may cling to a shred of virtue. But only for so long.

Schoonenberg wrote that fallen man is unable, without grace, to keep the commandments of the natural law for a long time.

[Why did Schoonenberg refer to ‘the commandments of the natural law’ and not ‘the divine law’?

Does Schoonenberg conflate thinkdivine and lawessential?

Or does his intuition implicitly comply with the explicit model of the intersection of virtue and sin?]