06/8/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 CM

Summary of text [comment] page 82

[Does Schoonenberg’s speculation cohere with Augustine’s concept of original sin?

An Archaeology of the Fall describes one consistency.

Eve, like the rest of us, heard what she wanted to hear.

What did she want to hear?

The serpent talked as if it were a projection of Eve’s unconscious mind.

Does the difference between flesh (passion) and reason capture the serpent’s words?

Or is ‘flesh and reason’ opposed to ‘the spirit of God’s command’?

To me, the latter option prevails.

First, it seems that the latter difference matches the serpent itself. ‘Flesh (presence) and reason (meaning)’ reflect the message underlying ‘the image of a talking serpent’.

Second, consider way the serpent seduced Eve. It started with sensuality and ended with reason.]

06/7/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 CL

[Today, in the third and fourth generation after Schoonenberg wrote, ‘the symbolic order of big government liberalism’ is … unzipping.

Schoonenberg aimed to show that another Scriptural contrast, ‘the whole person against God’s law’, could support the actuality of the term ‘concupiscence’.

Today, his work stands in testimony to fully zipped Modernism.]

06/5/17

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

Summary of text [comment] page 82

[Schoonenberg made clear that Church doctrine is not wrong.

Instead, it has been rendered less relevant due to civilizational circumstances.

In 7764 U0’, Original Sin was labeled mythology (defined by Modernism as equivalent to all other ancient origin stories).

Specialized modern languages (or discourses) set ‘mythology’ into a framework of ‘true’ versus ‘false’ in regards to actuality. Such is the scientific point of view. The Story of the Fall could not support the actuality of the term ‘concupiscence’.

The modern placement was both true (versus false) and deceptive (versus true).

‘Mythology’ may be false in contrast to experimentally verifiable true. But, ‘mythology’ is not make believe in contrast to scientifically believable. Instead, ‘mythology’ is true as opposed to deceptive or deceptive as opposed to true.]

05/30/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 CG

Summary of text [comment] page 82

[At this point, ‘concupiscence’ is a word supported by two oppositions, one belonging to Church doctrine and one belonging to Schoonenberg.

The technical difference may be described, using the Greek opposition, as follows:

For Church doctrine, ‘flesh’ is different than ‘reason’. ‘Flesh’ is subject to ‘the state of being with Cupid (a pagan god of desire)’. The fancy word for this state is ‘concupiscence’.

For Schoonenberg’s speculation, ‘flesh and reason’ are distinct but inseparable. Both are different from ‘spirit’. Both ‘flesh and reason’ are subject to concupiscence. Concupiscence encompasses both material and immaterial desires, as well as personal and social conditions.]

05/29/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 CF

Summary of text [comment] page 82

[Is a ‘concupiscence versus reason’ paradigm inadequate?]

Schoonenberg looked at Scripture. He found that concupiscence is also opposed to God’s law.

Here was a more adequate paradigm:

Concupiscence is both in the world and in the flesh. Concupiscence is a sinful attitude and an inability to integrate our tendencies in love. Concupiscence encompasses both soul and body. Concupiscence is the whole person in opposition to God’s

05/26/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 CE

Summary of text [comment] page 82

Schoonenberg reiterated the point.

In Church doctrine, concupiscence is a sequel to Original Sin.

This statement reflects a dualism in Greek philosophy. Concupiscence implies ‘the flesh as opposed to reason’. Since concupiscence is not subject to reason, it is regarded as bad.

This raises a question:

Can reason participate in concupiscence? Does concupiscence include reason?