08/4/16

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

[Schoonenberg’s translator used the word ‘love’ to indicate, foremost ‘agape’.

Yet, “he” did not rule out ‘eros’.

To me, this implies that ‘love’ is rooted in the realm of possibility. Contradictions are allowed. Real love, in contrast, is actual. It emerges from and situates agape and eros. Real love cannot be reduced to ‘brotherly affections’ or ‘feelings of attraction’.]

08/3/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 AS

Summary of text [comment] page 72

Real love proceeds from grace. Conversion is crucial to love. The inability to love is an immediate sequel to sin.

[However, as noted in the previous blog, televisionaries and their fellow travelers repackaged ‘the inability to love’ into ‘television broadcast love’.

Of course, the word ‘love’ has been redefined in two ways.

Television viewers now associate the word ‘love’ solely with ‘eros’ (love between male and female, in the broadest sense of the term).

Television producers usurp the other word for love, ‘agape’ (love of friends, kin and fellow believers, in the broadest sense of the term). They substitute the union of the hero and victim against the (imaginary) victimizer. Here is ‘a union in hatred of another’.

Are either of these ‘real love’?]