[The sinful think^group believes it has the light.  If it gains sovereign power, this think^group addresses all subjects as either think^{group_is_light} or think^{enemy_is_darkness}.   Think^{group_is_light} hates think^{enemy_is_darkness}, even though it cannot really tell friend from foe. Think^{group_is_light} denies the consequences of its own (sinful) actions.

Any person of virtue who points out the horrid consequences of think^{group_is_light} is branded as a person who adheres to the malevolent world view of think^{enemy_is_darkness}.  That person becomes a “scapegoat”, an object for hatred.

Think^{group_is_light} rejects the possibility that any alleged “person of virtue” has the capacity to witness to the law^essential that they themselves deny.  Consequently, the prophet is condemned because she does have the proper intelligence, standing, sophistication or credentials.  It is impossible for her to witness to what she plainly sees.

John’s pithy view of “what sin is” points to the core of these issues: The only moral religious perspective where the appearance of law^essential corresponds to its substance is think^divine.

Law^acceptance and think^divine complement one another.

That is why sin is infidelity and hatred against the light, which is Christ. ]

Summary of text [comment] page 14

Schoonenberg summed John’s view of sin.  Sin is infidelity and hatred against the light, which is Christ (John 15:18, 23-25).

[To me, it seems that Christ goes with think^divine, a “way of thought that puts sovereign power into context”.  Think^Christ is a suprasovereign mythos and logos.

“Sin” associates to those think^groups practicing infidelity and hatred against the light of think^Christ.

A think^group that is an infra-sovereign religion does not necessarily hate the light.  However, some do.  The sinful ones do.]

[In order to gain insight into lasting sin, one can guess “what is impossible “.  “What is impossible” forms the unbridgable gap between law^denial and law^acceptance.

For the Jewish establishment at the time of Jesus, I suppose the impossible relation concerned “purity”.

To the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes, the common folk could never be pure.  It was impossible.  The Pharisees had a relation of impossibility between {denying the consequences of their actions, through diverse explanations, including a defense of themselves the only practitioners of think^pure} and {accepting the consequences of their actions and attitudes, including their projection of think^impure onto others}.

The Pharisees concluded that a filthy carpenter from Nazareth (yes, the one complaining about the consequences of their actions and attitudes, which were all false allegations, because after all, only they knew how to properly keep the hundreds of ritual obligations of the Law) could not possibly be correct.  He had to be some sort of devil (projected think^impure).

The only moral religious perspective where “law^essential is not denied” corresponds to think^divine.   Law^acceptance and think^divine, then, stand in mutual confirmation.]

Summary of text [comment] page 14 continued from 1.2P and Q

[“Lasting sin” takes on the form of “a relation of impossibility between acceptance of law^essential and denial of law^essential” (or law^acceptance and law^denial).

In other words, with lasting sin, law^essential takes on the character of a relation.]

[The prior blog’s example parallels, on a minor scale, a doubling back that may occur on a grander scale.

People, who are not in a particular think^group, suffer the law^essential that the think^group generates through their “missing the mark”.  When people grimace or complain, they are labeled – rather, branded – according to some quality that think^group projects onto them.

Once this second layer of symbols appears, lasting sin appears, because the way out of the box created by think^group becomes impossible.

What is not possible?

Unbranding is not possible from the standpoint of think^group.

Each accusation (and attack on an innocent) cements the think^group.

The ratchet effect explains how think^{along_with_the_group} becomes the exclusive way of thinking.

To question the box is to be labeled as holding a “false consciousness”: that is, think^{hate_the_group}.]

Summary of text [comment] page 14

[What about lasting sin as the definitive turning away from Son of God?

Once iniquity is present, then simple denials of the consequences may not sufficient. The consequences that accrue to others may be too obvious.

Consequently, denials may account for those consequences (as due to something other than think^group).  The differences inherent in these denials contribute to the symbolic order of a think^group.  Thus, the language of the think^group, as a system₃ of differences₁, excludes attribution of the consequences to the think^group.  Law^denial becomes more difficult to counter.

Here is an example.

Consider a noisy party.  The neighbors complain.  How do the partiers respond when police come, telling them to “keep it down”?  They call their neighbor’s “old fogies”.

What happened?  The party of think^party has created the party of think^old_fogies.  The neighbors may not be “old fogies” at all, but now they are branded.

Branding may lead to further issues.

A partier, in disgust at the old fogies, breaks an empty beer bottle on the neighbor’s driveway.

The neighbors now have broken glass on their driveway.  They had it coming to them.  What else did they expect?  The old-fogies.]

Summary of text [comment] page 14.

In John, “lack of faith in the Son of God” is represented as “lasting sin”.

“Lasting sin” is “iniquity”.

John speaks of a “final hardening” that is a definitive turning away from the Son of God.  The “final hardening” leads to “eternal damnation”.

[Here, we have some more associations:

lasting sin; similar to “way of the flesh” : includes “denial of law^essential₃(_₂(disposition₁))” that presumes “think^group₃(_₂(conscience^lacking₁))”.

iniquity : law^essential exists despite denials. Others suffer consequences of a sinner’s transgressions.]

[What does the idea that law^essential is not limited to the sinner imply?

For one, think^group contextualizes the entire natural philosophical axis as if it were pure situation.

Similarly, law^essential (as well as law^acceptance and law^denial) contextualizes the moral religious axis as if it were pure situation.

This gives rise to two observations.

First, have you noticed that when you talk about human actions according to one axis, the other conversant often responds according to the opposed intersecting axis?

If you complain about the morals of another person’s actions, the respondent might dismiss the actions as inconsequential.  Or, if you are trying to point out the potential consequences of some action, the respondent might act offended.  You are questioning ‘his’ morals.

Second, there seems to be a sliding scale, where law^essential – the consequences of transgressions – changes as the moral religious axis changes, and visa versa.

This leads to a counter-intuitive insight.  Paul argues that, once you come to the point where you no longer deny the consequences of your transgressions, you are open to insights into think^divine that you would never have achieved in a direct manner.

Redemption is discovery.]

[The first two points are familiar.  The third point expands Paul’s views about the “flesh”.

How does it expand Paul’s views?

Could one say that “no one is unaffected by the sinner’s ‘flesh’”?

If  “denial of law^essential₃(_₂(disposition₁))” associates to  “way of the flesh”, then the “independence of law^essential from think^group” corresponds to the third point above (that all are affected by a sinner’s transgression).

The consequences of sin are not limited to the sinner, despite the sinner’s excuses, law^denial.]

Summary of text [comment] page 13.

Schoonenberg makes three points at this juncture.

Point1: John expresses the same ideas as Paul, but with greater emphasis on the end times.  The choice is ultimately for or against Christ [as a human person embodying think^divine].

Point 2: John also wrote that “sin” hardens the sinner’s “heart” and the sinner ends up living a “hard” life (Note the combo sums to “hardened heart”).

Point 3: John claimed that no one is unaffected by a sinner’s transgression.