Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2AD-3

[By the 2010s, the word ‘sin’ was replaced by ‘anti-object’ terms. These anti-object epithets are drained of traditional meaning. They are fully compliant with Progressive ideologies. They are not descriptions. They are political accusations. They are thinkanti-object.

Over the past 50 years, the old wineskins of familiar words have been emptied. The old wineskins have been filled with new definitions, powerful concoctions of ‘anti-knowledge’.

Orwell was right on this one.

Our language has been redefined.

The old wineskins are about to burst.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 AP

[This twisted triangle discloses an unreal love.

This unreal love satisfies the viewer’s dispositions and bears false witness to the golden calf’s true intent.

The former’s conscience is not free, it accepts delusion.

The latter’s conscience is not free, it presents delusion.

Only a free conscience is open to real love.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2AD-1

[Over the half century, language change has been significant.

Schoonenberg, who published his book in 1962, must have witnessed the postreligious manipulation of the Dutch language in his home in Europe. His book aimed to find a new appreciation of the term ‘sin’ (especially the term ‘original sin’).

Karl Menninger’s book (published in 1973 and reviewed in prior blogs) demonstrates that the word ‘sin’ was successfully marginalized by the end of the 1960s.

By the 1990s, the word ‘sin’ was so marginalized that Ted Peters’ book (published in 1994) focused on Satanic Cults within the New Age Movement.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2AC-1

[How did this come to be?

In America, the symbolic order began turning in the 1950s. It attained temporary stability in the 1960s. The language (as system of differences) remained weirdly jelled until the 2000s.

Many circumstances contributed to this stasis.

A demographic condition played a role. The so-called boomers born in the late 1940s and all the 1950s dominated discourse for many years.

An institutional condition may have also played a role in the the temporary stability. State-subsidized university systems promoted conformity in language use.

The state universities then set the stage for the postmodern conversion of discourse into a language game during the decades since the 1960s.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2AA

[Look how the word ‘free’ has turned on the wheel of a changing symbolic order.

What happened to the ‘free eros’ acclaimed in the 1960s?

The word ‘free’ no longer implies ‘independence, responsibility, personhood, and grace’. It suggests ‘without cost to the user’.

‘Free eros’ became sex without commitment.

‘Free agape’ fared no different. ‘Free healthcare’ exemplifies ‘free agape’.

The original meaning underlying the word ‘freedom’ gave the slogans ‘free love’ (eros) and ‘free healthcare’ (agape) a real (though diminishing) association to independence, responsibility, personhood and grace.

Now, 50 years later, Schoonenberg’s assertions ring true.

‘Free love’ sounds like ‘the procreative acts of animals, without the procreation, of course.’

‘Free healthcare’ sounds like ‘standing in line to redeem a government coupon’.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2Y

Summary of text [comment] page 72

Sin renders of us unable to love God and unable to love our fellow “man”.

If the person proclaims “his” love, it is not real.

One cannot appeal to the so-called fact, that some sinners (people who have lost grace) may nevertheless really love.

[Here, ‘love’ should be called agape as opposed to eros.

The above summary appears to confound the two.

Can a person incapable of agape fall into eros?

Here is a question that post-religious (enlightenment) rhetoricians would love to exploit. So let me pass it by.

According to Schoonenberg, natural agape cannot be real agape.

Agape is real’ when one’s conscience is oriented towards God.]