(January 23, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(January 23, 2016 at 3:44 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I'm sorry that you cannot appreciate the difference between the words "should" and "will". (My kids do, by the way.) The Catholic Church's "evolving" position on the death penalty is a perfect example of the Zeitgeist at work, "theologically speaking". But, yes, "Welcome!" I am glad that the Church is on board with respect to this issue at least.
So what exactly is the difference between the 1st edition's teaching and the 2nd, other than the fact that they used a different word that doesn't even change the message? They both say that the DP is only ok if it is the only means to keep a society safe, otherwise the right thing is to take the route that does not kill the person.
With that being said, yes, the teachings do evolve over the course of 2,000 years. The official, doctrinal teachings don't change completely but they evolve and get added on as we come to a better understanding of things. However, on this particular issue, I see no "evolution" between the 1st and 2nd edition's stance. And I still don't understand why you objected to my initial post about this in the first place.
I find it curious that you don't seem to think changing the word of Gods disciples and through extension God is extremely relevant. After all, even if the change is only slight it can cause an entire divergence of interpretation. Given the nature of the text I would of thought the creator of everything would want it made very clear what he wants and choose his words very carefully as he would be more knowledgeable than a master linguist and thus more conscious of the potential pitfalls. Thats not even taking omnipotence into account.
Did he make a mistake the first time? Is there predictive text in heaven? If so I totally get it.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred.
- Abdul Alhazred.