Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 IH
01/12/18
01/11/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 IG
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The previous blog leads me to what Schoonenberg wrote next:]
The free choice, for good or evil, always implies some obligation. We exercise our freedom in serving God or Satan.
[What does that mean for the mandala of the heart?]
01/10/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 IF
[Even stranger, do the terms ‘responsibility versus words’ coincide with the terms ‘lawacceptance versus lawdenial’?]
01/9/18
01/8/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 IE
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Obligations parallel the horizontal axis pair:
Lawessential3H( human thoughts2V and human actions2H(_1H))
Or:
Lawessential3H( what is good and what is bad2( _1H))
Do these look compatible?
Do obligations parallel the essence of the law?]
01/5/18
01/4/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 IC
[Let me compare this to ‘the message underlying the word ‘religion’‘.]
01/3/18
01/2/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 IA
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Obligations are implicit to the mandala of the heart.
They are portrayed in the following categorical pair:
Thought experiment3H( my choice2V and something2V(_1H))
Or:
Thought experiment3H( my heart2( _1H))]
12/29/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 HZ
[In the next few blogs, I construct a thread in the style of Carl Jung.
It will lead me back to Schoonenberg’s discussion on our inclination to evil as a sequel to sin.]