NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/bit/listserv/catholic/4351

Text File | 1993-01-22 | 6.4 KB | 118 lines

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!artin!jocallag
From: [e-mail] (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexual acts
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:20:52 GMT
Lines: 106

In article <[e-mail]> Jim McIntosh <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>>So you are saying that it was once true that the world was flat?
>
>No, of course not. I'm sorry I was not more clear. I am saying that the minds
>of those who hear the truths over time change, and therefore the way that
>unchanging truth is presented must also change or else it loses its meaning
>and understanding.

You say the way that "unchanging truth is presented must also change."
That looks like a contradiction in terms, which unless the laws of logic
also change as you argue other thing do, seems to be false, at least as long
as the principle of non-contradiction is stable.

>
>Let's take, as a simple example, the Ascension. The ancient view of the world
>was one where the world was a flat, closed system. There was the land and it
>was surrounded by water. Hades was down below this land. The sky was a
>sphere, and the stars were pinholes which allowed the eternal light of
>heaven, where God dwelled, to shine through. To someone with this
>understanding of the cosmos, the line in Luke 24:51 ("...he left them, and
>was taken up to heaven") would be a simple statement with one clear meaning.
>Jesus rose from the dead, and then ascended in that same body and popped
>through the sky to be with God. We, however, with our different understanding
>about the nature of the universe, must try to re-explain what happened.
>Unless we believe that Jesus's body is still out there cruising through the
>vastness of space, we must find different words to say the same thing.

As a matter of fact, I believe it was Aristarchus of Samos who proved in the
fourth century B.C. that the world was not flat, but round.  In any case
any educated person in the Roman culture, depending as it did upon the
Greek achievements in geometry and astronomy would have known both proofs,
i.e. from the lenght os shadows cast at different places on the earth at the
same time, and from lunar eclipses.  That includes the educated Jews, who
knew more than their Hebrew.  Now the main sources of the early traditions
of the Church come to us penned by many of the non-Jewish educated gentiles
who had no problem accepting the story of the Ascension, nor understanding
it in the context of the world view they had.  The world view you attribute to
them is simply a modern prejudice against the culture and achievements of
the past.
In any case, I have no idea what those who witnessed the Ascension saw.  I do
know by faith that what they saw was real, and that they chose certain language
to communicate that.  However, I do not see how anyone could claim to have
any sort of access to a clearly miraculous event outside of the words in
which it was reported by those who witnessed, and could by such independent
access claim to judge their words as now unsuitable, and our words
preferable.  What new scientific evidence have you Jim, that makes the
Ascension more acceptable and understandable to us in the twentieth
century with our words and our view of the natural world.  Your
claim only goes through to the extent that you assume that everyone back
then was a complete literalist with respect to the language of scripture,
and did not know that the witnesses were using the best language they could
to describe an event incapable of being described literally by those words.
But there is ample evidence in the writings of the Fathers, both The
Greek and Latin Fathers, that they were not as theologically inept as
you seem to think they were.  And to the extent that their belief as recorded
gives evidence to the belief of the larger communities, as well as the
fact that they typically led their communities, I don't think you have much
evidence at all for attributing such a naive view to the early Church.

>
>The truth remains the same. Jesus Christ exists today with God in Heaven. The
>words we have to use to explain it is different from those in the past, and
>the words that those in the future will use will be different from ours.

But you have not simply been suggesting that the truth's remain the same,
while the words change, and we must see how to express those truths in
the words, salve veritate.  You have been suggesting that what was true
for them might not come out to be true for us, since we use different
words.  E.G. for them and their world view and their words it was true
that homosexuality is wrong.  For us, with our world view, and our words
it is not true that homosexuality is wrong.  But clearly that does not
follow.

>
>>Here are a couple of words of the past, that if your statement is true,
>>no lnger suffice:  I am the way, the truth, and the life; he who believes
>>in me shall never die.
>>
>>If that's not quite word for word, its because I'm a Catholic.
>>Anyway, I'm sorry you don't think those words, being of the past no longer
>>suffice.
>
>John, you can't seriously believe that Jesus used exactly those words. First
>of all, he didn't speak in English! Why does the KJV sound so funny to us? At
>the time it was written, it was completely understandable. As English has
>changed with time, we must produce new translations. The truth remains the
>same. The words we use to communicate it must change.

Exactly, but that is not what you have been suggesting.  Where is this truth
located that you refer to if not in the sentences we utter?  Supposing my
quotation is correct.  According to the best translations we have, those
particular words are chosen in the twentieth century in order to most accurately
communicate what was actually said by Christ in the first, and written down
in a language quite different from English.  Nonetheless, the point of
translation is to communicate as best possible the same reality through
distinct languages adn words.  Take an example:

I grow up in France learning 'deux et deux font quatre'.  When I move to
the U.S., and learn English, based upon my arithmetic lessons as a child
in France, should I tell my own child that 'two plus two is five'?

Peace,
John