X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:54:09 HST
From:         "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality
              15,  9:29am)

From: Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

> Len wrote:
      Many things, among them that the priest who is teaching our
theology course in making reference to the need to counstantly
reevaluate theology said that..
> >writing older than 20 years is out of date...The Bible must be
> >constantly revaluated in light of new information.

> Eric wrote:
> >HA!  What a joke!

Another member answered:
> Eric, if what you say were true, there would be exactly and only
>one version of the bible and it would be in Aramaic, Hebrew, and
>Greek.

Eric continueth..
|That's not quite what I meant.  I believe the suggestion of the
|original post was not that we need to produce more accurate
|translations and more precise manuscripts, or even that we need to
|understand better the context in which a book was written so that
|we may understand it, but the suggestion, to me, appeared to give
|us liberty to interpret the Bible in the context of popular
|culture and dismiss much of what has been traditionally believed,
|and also the liberty to come up with new theology according to
|current social belief and "reinterpret" the Bible.

Eric, you read into what I wrote what you wanted to hear, lumping
me with many of the New Age "Theologians" who wish to redo
Scripture.  The entire post mentioned that culture was ONE of the
six factors in theology that must be considered in establishing
your theology.  I hope you have read my longer posting which goes
into more detail.  Please do not be so quick to jump to conclusions
until you know the total point of view of the person you are
pigeon-holing.  I did not, nor do I advocate interpreting the Bible
in the context of popular culture and dismissing much of what has
traditionally been believed.  Tradition, as you might know, is one
of the three sources of revelation for Episcopalians.  We do not
ignore it.  And change, if it comes, comes very cautiously and
slowly.  But we are not encapsulated in the third centry language,
customs or social mores.  We live in the 20th century, we
experience 20th century society, we must have a theology that
speaks to 20th century people.

| For example, there is a tendency today to explain the
|Resurrection not in terms of a real historical event, where a man
|died then rose from the dead to eat and drink, but rather as
|merely a myth that represented the uplifting of the disciples, and
|the joy that Christ brings us.  In the process they deny the
|historicity of the Resurrection.  This is an example of a bad
|reinterpretation of Scripture.

I agree, Eric.  You did not read me suggesting that.  You are the
one who is providing that example.

|   Some also suggest that because Scripture was written in a
|misogynist culture, we must dismiss its teachings on the behavior
|of the sexes.

Yes, there are quite a few, even in our Church.  They would like to
use alternative language, and some do.  I did when I first got into
my studies, after talking to one priest who works in a prison.  I
no longer do so as I have learned more and experienced more.  We
all have our own walk, Eric.

|And some believe that in light of modern culture, the prohibition
|against premarital sex or divorce can be safely ignored.

Many of them, not occasionally priests.  But I see the results of
promiscuity, premarital sex, and irresponsiblity every day in my
Gyn office.  You will not find me preaching sexual abandon, ala the
"sexual revolution".

|   It is preposterous to suggest that all of Christian belief and
|doctrine is obsolete and must be reevaluated every once in a
|while.

No one is suggesting that ALL of Christian belief and doctrine is
obsolete and must be reevaluated every once in a while.  Fr Baker
was suggesting that a text on theology was out of date after 20
years, and what it contains must be reevaluated.  And it does not
hurt anything to read Scripture in the light of contemorary
experience, culture and language.  You are not required to change
anything, Eric, just have the ability to question it....that's all.

|Jesus literally rose from the dead -- this happened, and there is
|no reason to change this.  Certain doctrines were given to the
|Apostles and never meant to be changed.  We can't just make truth
|relative and declare open season on all Christian beliefs.

Agree totally.  Nowhere did I suggest doing so.

|   The idea expressed about throwing out theology every twenty
|years assumes that truth is determined by popular culture and
|human opinion.

In the first place I did not mention throwing out theology every
twenty years.  I said that our instructor had suggested that a 20
year old theological text might be out of date, and need to be
reevaluated.  You are making the assumption about what he meant,
and your assumption is similar to most assumptions, very wrong.

|I'm sorry, theologians are not infallible.  All Christian truth
|has been revealed to us already and we are not free to throw it
|out and change it.


Oh?  If ALL Christian truth has been revealed to us already, what's
with all this stuff about Fatima, and Lourdes, and the various
appearances of the Holy Family all over the world.  Is that NOT
Christian truth?  Which is it Eric, truth or not-truth?

|  We can increase our understanding, we can find new symbols, but
|to insist that all Christian doctrine must be thrown out every
|generation is even more preposterous than saying that all
|mathematics must be thrown out every generation.

So you agree that we can increase our understanding and find new
symbols.  Great!  On that we finally can agree.  It is your
interpretation that you are objecting to.  I certainly did not
suggest what you are decrying.

I am going to delete all the discussion of YHWH and the spilled
ink.  It is interesting, but not germaine to our discussion.  I
hope you read my follow-up reply to John O, Eric.  And please don't
jump to more assumptions.  Only read and discuss what I post.  If
you have problems with it we can discuss it calmly.  That way we
all get new ideas presented instead of insisting that there is only
ONE WORD.

Shalom, Eric                      Len Howard
                                  tas@pegasus.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic