[The person may occasionally act as if “he” were choosing the moral good.
The dispositions, influenced by moral actions, may adjust.
However, the interpellation of thinkgroup is also in play.
Thinkgroup may be so pervasive that the person, in choosing what appears to be a moral good, only adopts another form of slavery.]
Summary of text [comment] page 77
Under sinful circumstances, a sinner may choose a good on “his” own, but not the moral good that is the object of virtue. “He” can choose only limited goods, provided, of course, that “his” dispositions have not already been trained by sinful habitual actions.
[Here, the model of intersecting nested forms assists.
Even when consciencelacking has made the person unfree (that is, dependent on the thinkgroup), the parallel vertical nested form of thinkdivine still interpellates.]
[Schoonenberg’s comments can be portrayed through a familiar intersection, the message underlying the word ‘religion’.
Sin and virtue are actualities that both situate and emerge from our dispositions and conscience (free will). The physical ability to love goes with the dispositions. The moral ability (or inability) to love goes with conscience.
I label ‘the moral ability to love’ ‘consciencefree’.
Here, ‘free’ means freedom from a thinkgroup that makes you a slave to a sinful behavior.
The ‘moral inability to love’, corresponds to ‘consciencelacking’, which means a conscience lacking in freedom.]
Summary of text [comment] page 77
Consider the distinction, found in theology, between a sinner’s physical ability to love and his moral inability for love.
The sinful man possesses both.
[But what are the meanings, presences and messages underlying the word ‘love’?
Eros? Agape? Does ‘love’ mean whatever I want it to mean? Is it whatever our flawed imaginations project onto the word?
Schoonenberg argued that, since we are born into sinful situations, our choices are constrained by conditions. We do not know any different. If our world does not fashion full love or complete virtue, how are we to choose them?
In short, we are ‘free to choose’ but ‘true love’ and ‘true virtue’ do not appear to be options.]
Summary of text [comment] page 77
How did we get to the situation of sin?
Is there a trait, a flaw, that favors it?
Summary of text [comment] page 77
On the one hand, considering our nature as human beings, our powers are radically unimpaired. Considering the situation in which we exist, we appear powerless.
On the other hand, it seems as if the situation itself impairs us.
If our powers are radically unimpaired, how did we end up in a situation that renders us powerless?
The consequences of sin have taken their toll. They have altered the situation, restricting the space and community where one can find love and practice authentic virtue.
[Thinkdivine is always calling, even in the Multiversities, where a Progressive professoriate propagates this disempowering fraud.
The Multiversities are the temples of the religion that the federal government has established.
Open your eyes and see.]
[As long as the Progressive sovereign is able to compensate these 100,000 or more single woman, acting as a surrogate husband provider and securing their votes through various affirmative actions, the feminist-dictated symbolic order holds.
Yes, it sounds like a sad permutation of the word ‘fidelity’.
As long as this situation lasts, as long as resources are transferred by the sovereign from one segment of society to another for Progressive religious purposes, the libertarian Milton Friedman’s ‘free to choose’ will be excluded.
The consequences of that exclusion will be unseen.
They will be denied.
It is easy to do. The consequences consist in alterations of the realm of possibility. Who can measure that?
100,000 woman cannot find an honest man.
100,000 woman feel that they need the government to take care of them…
… for one feminist professor.]
[Progressives also deny the concrete consequences of undermining the natural course of male-female bonding.
For every 1 feminist professor in the Multiversity, there are at least 100,000 women who are single and have aborted their fetuses. They are the concrete victims of feminist ideologies.
Yet, the professor is undisturbed. She speaks for the 100,000 and expects them to heed her advice.
She talks on Progressive TV. She writes in Progressive print media. In both media, the listener cannot talk back.
She expects ‘liberated women’ to socially construct her abstract symbolic order. 100,000 woman-victims read her words for self-justification or hear them through the echo chambers of Progressive media.
Yes, 100,000 women are victims…
…for one feminist professor.
The dead fetus is her ‘word made flesh’.]
