Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BR
Summary of text [comment] page 82
[The entire person, body and soul, was vulnerable to hearing what I want to hear and acting against the good (of thinkdivine and lawessential).]
05/8/17
Category Archives: Defining Religion
04/24/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BH-2
[Paul was not a man given to over-indulgence of the appetites. He did not sell his flesh into bondage for material or sensual pleasure. He was a man given to righteousness.
So what did he do?
He sold his bones into bondage for an immaterial pleasure.
He sold his bones, which, in the Old Testament, long to stand before the Lord in righteousness, to a thinkgroup and consciencelacking that had already taken the metaphor and turned it into an instrument for propaganda.
The Pharisees and the Sadducees were all about ritual demands.
They were the “bones” that held Israel together. They were “bloody” servants of ‘the object that brings all subjects into organization’.]
04/12/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BB
Summary of text [comment] page 81
Schoonenberg quoted St. Paul (Galatians 5:17) in discussing the opposition between flesh and spirit.
[My suggestion is this: Paul struggles against a metaphor that has been repurposed by an (infra)sovereign religion.]
The desires of the flesh [and, now, the bones] are against the spirit.
The desires of the spirit are against the flesh [and the elite ‘bones that support society’].
These statements differ, even though they sound the same.
[Does Paul’s term ‘flesh’ veil a change of meaning of the Old Testament opposition between ‘flesh and bones’ that occurred when the metaphor was usurped by an (infra)sovereign religion?
What a wonderful question.]
04/11/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BA
[Oh, speaking of terminology, I want to suggest the following:
‘An infrasovereign religion’ is one that has not grasped sovereign power and may or may not be in pursuit of sovereign power.
‘An (infra)sovereign religion’ has gained power and has instituted itself as an allied member of a Public Cult.
Most Public Cults (religionsovs) are alliances of (infra)sovereign religions.]
04/7/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AZ-1
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[A similar change in the American language occurs today. The (infra)sovereign religions of Progressivism usurp and tailor the specialized language of Christianity to suit their pursuit of sovereign power.
In particular, the word ‘social’, like the ancient word ‘bones’, has been drained of personal meaning and repurposed for organizational manipulation and control.]
04/4/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AW
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[Elitist (infra)sovereign consciencelacking is more spiritual (thus, more dehumanizing) than the spineless consciencelacking of a person whose flesh is in bondage to seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.
Why?
In the former, interpellation of thinkdivine has been rendered impossible.
Religionsovereign marks the contextualizing of concupiscence by cruelty. Concupiscence requires self-justification. Cruelty requires blasphemy.
Thinkpro-object promotes self-justification.
Hatred of the anti-object produces blasphemy.]
03/31/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AU
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[Ironically, later in the Old Testament, ‘the bones’ became ‘the symbol of the sovereign and the religious leaders’.
The metaphor was hijacked by the elites. They veiled the original meaning of the words with new interpretations. The ruling elites contextualized themselves. They justified their sovereign power. They were not building the character of the people. They were usurping it.
They called themselves ‘the blood and bones’ of Israel.
The bones were ‘the objects that bring all subjects into organization’.
This blood defined the elite’s will to power.]
03/30/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AT-2
[The person who chains his conscience to a thinkgroup lacks ‘the freedom to be righteous before the Lord’. That person has no bones. That person is spineless.
At the same time, the person cannot deny the feeling in “her” bones. The bones long to stand righteous before the Lord.
Therefore, the opposition between flesh and bones serves as a metaphor for the exclusive yet interpellating relation between consciencelacking and consciencefree.
The flesh may be sold into the bondage of sin. The bones cannot be sold. The bones always want to lift the flesh back up, back to where it is supposed to be, standing righteous before the Lord.
What a remarkable way to portray the conflict within us.]
03/29/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AT-1
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[The early Old Testament image of ‘the flesh sold into the bondage of sin’ calls the person. It calls the person’s bones. It is not a metaphor for society.
The bones long to be free. They long to be righteous before the Lord. Here, ‘bones’ call to mind consciencefree in the intersecting nested form portrayed above. Thinkdivine interpellates ‘the bones’. Thinkgroup calls the ‘flesh’.]
03/28/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AS
[In considering these two applications, I capture a key difference between an infrasovereign and a suprasovereign religion.
The metaphor of blood and bones, applied to the person, builds character.
The same metaphor, applied to society, interpellates the person into an (infra)sovereign religion.
One tells the person to breathe, because the flesh, blood and bones belongs to the person.
The other paralyzes. The blood and bonds belongs to the sovereign. The people are weak and fleshy. Also, the sovereign serves as artificial lungs.
This raises the question:
When I hear the metaphor of ‘flesh versus bones’ how am I to tell the difference between the two options?]