Category Archives: The science of Original Sin

What about this vision of Original Sin as a reification of our own interpretations of the ‘what is real’. Once reified, a “serpent” inspires us to actions that produce results that differ from expectations (i.e. what is defined to be ‘real’). How do we deal with those results? Examples? And how does this picture resonate with traditional interpretations of these chapters of Genesis. This topic is addressed in chapters 11,12 and 13.

07/31/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 DW

Summary of text [comment] page 82

[Does the first singularity confirm Augustine’s social construction of Original Sin?

So far, I noted, in blogs on Anthony Zimmerman’s work, that Augustine’s paradigm looks like the myth of the descent of the soul.

Augustine was once a Manichaean philosopher.

In the Manichaean view, babies are evil.

Why?

They are material.

The incorruptible and good spirit that animates each baby collects corruptible and evil material in its descent.

The details about how this occurs are never quite clear. But, everyone knows the punchline: Babies are eternal spiritual sparks trapped in corruptible mortal flesh.]

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.]