Category Archives: Defining Religion

10/11/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CJ

[So what did Schoonenberg intend with ‘his use of the word ‘nature’‘?

To me, his arguments point to the horizontal axis of several of the recently discussed intersections.

For example, in ‘the message underlying the word ‘religion’‘, Schoonenberg’s use of the word ‘nature’ points to the horizontal nested form:

Lawessential or Consequences3H( sin and virtue2( dispositions1H))

In the tension between I recognize myself as an image of God and human nature is to participate in divine nature, the horizontal nested form is:

My divine nature to be the seat of choice3H( state of grace or state of self-destruction2( my potential for participation1H))]

10/6/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CG

[I suspect that the so-called ‘natural’ attempts to access our evolved nature are cultural phenomena.

They are scams, inducing self-destruction.

Why?

Natural ordination cannot be obtained in our current Lebenswelt.

The ordination of talk has changed. Before the first singularity, hand-speech talk held the qualities of reference. After the first singularity, speech-alone talk holds only symbolic qualities. Reference must be projected into words.

So what does ‘the projection of ‘what is natural’’ into words suggest?]

10/4/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CE

[In our current Lebenswelt, humans no longer have these options, even when the band itself is specialized (say royalty or blacksmiths).

Concupiscence has been unloosed.

To me, this unloosing resonates with Rene Girard’s descriptions of ‘unconstrained mimetic desire’.

Cupid is the god of mimetic desire.

After the first singularity, religious traditions wrestled with concupiscence, at first through thinkgroup (which originally served as thinkpost-first-singularity for a band or a specialization), then through a slow awakening to a trans-thinkgroup, which I label thinkdivine].

09/16/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 BV

[‘Grace’ is not What the Father Recognizes.

‘Grace’ is not the Son, the Object of the Father’s Love and Recognition.

‘Grace’ is like the dynamic of their Love and Recognition. This dynamic belongs to Creation because ‘the possibility of Creation’ synchronizes with ‘the Potential of God Recognizing Himself’.

Perhaps, the theological One True Triune God may be regarded as ‘a relation outside of time (eternal and archetypal)’ even as it engenders, by belonging to the realm of actuality, ‘another relation inside of time (immanent and conditional)’.]

09/15/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 BU

[The nested form of the Triune God serves as the third model.

This model is open to further exploration.

Grace, like love, seems to belong to the design inherent in the normal context the Holy Spirit, who brings the Father and the Son into relation.

Grace also seems to belong to the Possibility of God’s Self-Recognition.

In this model, the word ‘grace’ points to ‘the bringing of actuality from the Possibility of God Recognizing Himself according to the Designs of the Holy Spirit’.

Yet, the word ‘grace’ differs from both ‘the Possibility of God Recognizing Himself’ and ‘the Designs of the Holy Spirit’.

‘Grace’ differs from both ‘the Foundation of Love’ and ‘Love’.

Yet, belongs to both.]