Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KW

[Obligations went from responsibilities to words.

The words of the Law put the majority in bondage.

Common folk (the so-called “deplorables”) were required to meet traditional family and tribal obligations.

They were never adequate when it came to ritual purity. They were good people, but they were cast as losers

All they could hope for was to avoid accusations of thinkanti-object, that is, rumors that would ruin one’s life and relations.

Does that sound vaguely familiar for today’s (2017) America?]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KV

[Amazingly, the children of Israel returned to their homeland.

Interpretations of the Mosaic Law were formulated, in the centuries before Christ, by an (infra)sovereign religion.

Obligations were formulated according to a thinkpro-object obsessed with ritual purity. The Saduccees and Pharisees became experts in the obligations of ritual purity. This expertise was a ticket to wealth and status.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KU

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[So what happened?

I continue my guess.

Obviously, problems came from establishing a king.

The formation of a sovereign encouraged competition among contending points of view. Sovereign power offered opportunities for exploitation. Royal decrees put people in bondage. The court deprived the people of what they own.

The kingdoms of Israel and Judah failed due to royal immorality and incompetence, as well as the alienation of their own subjects.

Oh, plus an attacking empire.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KT

[Also, the obligations of tribe and family are particular.

My particular tribe and family may have a tendency to micromanage. Petty demands add to time-honored expectations.

Plus, there will always be a slacker in the house.

Plus, the family and tribe may have a debilitating tendency to blame all their woes on one person. Everyone wants to be blameless, so nothing gets done.

The Law of Moses mitigated that.

The Law of Moses held out the possibility of reward (or, at least, not punishment) for the individual with initiative, despite family and tribal obligations.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KQ

[The mirror of the world3a was illuminated by unforgiving traditional ways.

Something2a was either freedom within one’s tribe or family (provided you accept your responsibilities) or slavery to another tribe or family.

So the possibilities inherent in me1a faced two stark choices.

Weirdly, these choices support the modern notion of “freedom” as not being constrained by pre-existing responsibilities.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KN

[What is the actuality2a that fundamentally transforms freedom2a(1a) into bondage2a(1a)?

This ‘something2aemerges from and situates the possibilities inherent in me1a.

The mirror of the world3a or the thought experiment3a brings ‘something2a’ out of the possibilities inherent in me1a.

I may think that something2a enslaves me.

Actually, the relation3a enslaves me.]