04/17/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BE

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[With the concept of the historic twisting of the language in mind, I can appreciate Paul’s list of spiritual sins as ‘sins of the flesh and bones’.

In other words, Paul’s list is not as some quaint mis-designation, where ‘sins of the bones’ are misidentified as ‘sins of the flesh’. It is a flash of intuitive brilliance.

Paul compressed the Old Testament image of ‘flesh versus bones’, as corrupted by the (infra)sovereign religions of the ruling elites of Israel, into a contrast between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’.

St. Paul struggled for expression in a language completely corrupted by the power-serving propaganda of (infra)sovereign religions.]

04/14/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BD

Summary of text [comment] page 81

Schoonenberg then made an interesting comment: The works of the flesh that Paul enumerated were, in a more psychological analysis, better characterized as spiritual sins.

[Schoonenberg could not explain why.

He presented this as an observation.

Evidently, Paul did not know about the psychological sciences.

Does that count against him?]

04/13/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BC

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[To me, Paul’s term ‘flesh’ encompasses both ‘flesh’ and ‘bones’. The latter terms had already been twisted by the wordsmiths of power, in order to justify social constructions that organized society according to ‘the objects that bring every subject into organization’.

What were these objects?

Ironically, they included the ritual demands of the Mosaic Law.

The ‘bones of the elite’ supported ‘the ritual demands of the Second Temple Period’s interpretation of the Mosaic Law’.]

04/12/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BB

Summary of text [comment] page 81

Schoonenberg quoted St. Paul (Galatians 5:17) in discussing the opposition between flesh and spirit.

[My suggestion is this: Paul struggles against a metaphor that has been repurposed by an (infra)sovereign religion.]

The desires of the flesh [and, now, the bones] are against the spirit.

The desires of the spirit are against the flesh [and the elite ‘bones that support society’].

These statements differ, even though they sound the same.

[Does Paul’s term ‘flesh’ veil a change of meaning of the Old Testament opposition between ‘flesh and bones’ that occurred when the metaphor was usurped by an (infra)sovereign religion?

What a wonderful question.]

04/11/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BA

[Oh, speaking of terminology, I want to suggest the following:

‘An infrasovereign religion’ is one that has not grasped sovereign power and may or may not be in pursuit of sovereign power.

‘An (infra)sovereign religion’ has gained power and has instituted itself as an allied member of a Public Cult.

Most Public Cults (religionsovs) are alliances of (infra)sovereign religions.]

04/7/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AZ-1

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[A similar change in the American language occurs today. The (infra)sovereign religions of Progressivism usurp and tailor the specialized language of Christianity to suit their pursuit of sovereign power.

In particular, the word ‘social’, like the ancient word ‘bones’, has been drained of personal meaning and repurposed for organizational manipulation and control.]

04/6/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AY

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[Allow me to summarize:

The Old Testament metaphor of ‘flesh and bones’ (designating the essential person) was usurped (from the suprasovereign perspective) and tailored to fit an (infra)sovereign point of view.

The terms went from popular usage to propaganda.

This precisely follows Schoonenberg’s scenario of refusal and usurpation.

A change of the language, the symbolic order of society, became inevitable.

Schoonenberg did not have the analytical tools to explain why Paul opposed the ‘flesh’ against the ‘spirit’ (and not ‘flesh and bones’ against the ‘spirit’). He only noted that the Old Testament opposition applies to one situation and the New Testament opposition applies to another.

In addition, he limited his discussion to warning that the term ‘spirit’ does not simply replace the term ‘bones’.]

04/5/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AX

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[As the second Temple moved deeper into the Axial Age, the entire language of Israel shifted in response to this re-application of the flesh and bones metaphor to Society (as well as other usurpations of character-building metaphors).

The Party of the Sovereign changed the meaning of the words.

The Party of the Sovereign destroyed the language.

Paul’s opposition between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ is evidence of a shift in the symbolic order of language.]

04/4/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AW

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[Elitist (infra)sovereign consciencelacking is more spiritual (thus, more dehumanizing) than the spineless consciencelacking of a person whose flesh is in bondage to seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

Why?

In the former, interpellation of thinkdivine has been rendered impossible.

Religionsovereign marks the contextualizing of concupiscence by cruelty. Concupiscence requires self-justification. Cruelty requires blasphemy.

Thinkpro-object promotes self-justification.

Hatred of the anti-object produces blasphemy.]