What's wrong with change?

[Benedicta00]

Nope, because I already know that and agree with it. That is not what I am saying.

What I'm saying is that its sometimes hard to tell what is Tradition and what is tradition. I know the teaching that the Deposit can't be changed, fine...but I think the lines are fuzzy between the two, at least to me.

Defenders, the buck does stop at the magisterium, they alone can tell us what is true and what isn’t and you, have to assent because you have no other way other than God himself floating down telling you personally, that what she and the bible teaches are true. It stops at the magisteruim, you believe because you have faith, not because you have proof.

You have to accept that this Church who belongs to Christ – it’s his bride- isn't going to teach you anything wrong, if you don't, you'll just drive yourself crazy. The Church is not going to bend down to your lack of understanding of her; you have to just assent. Its called faith.

 

[Benedicta00]

Generally when people make assertions it is expected that they can and will back it up if asked. What's the big deal?

What is there to back up? What are you accusing the Church of exactly?

Ah, here goes the old Inquisition starting up again. The accusations that I am an insurgent against the Church are soon to follow...now where are the other two members of the tribunal? Yippee, I can't wait! Please...perhaps your "solution" isn't satisfactory to me? Ever think I could honestly be troubled?

I do think you are troubled and we are trying to help you but you fight us tooth and nail.

I really think you need prayer, I'll pray for you. You have been given the information- there is nothing left to give you s far as information goes, so I'll pray for you.

 

[Benedicta00]

Let's stick to the subject. I'm just curious about slavery in the Bible meaning paid work, that's all.

Where in the bible does it say slavery is only and limited to tortuous abuse? We are all slaves to one thing or another- it isn’t necessarily bad. It means to serve, that’s really it.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Where in the bible does it say slavery is only and limited to tortuous abuse? We are all slaves to one thing or another- it isn’t necessarily bad. It means to serve, that’s really it.

I never claimed slavery in the Bible equates to slavery of the Africans by the early Americans, for example.

However, I seriously doubt slaves in the Bible got paid.

 

[ChiRho]

Defenders, the buck does stop at the magisterium, they alone can tell us what is true and what isn’t and you, have to assent because you have no other way other than God himself floating down telling you personally, that what she and the bible teaches are true. It stops at the magisteruim, you believe because you have faith, not because you have proof.

You have to accept that this Church who belongs to Christ – it’s his bride- isn't going to teach you anything wrong, if you don't, you'll just drive yourself crazy. The Church is not going to bend down to your lack of understanding of her; you have to just assent. Its called faith.

Wow.

 

[geocajun]

Indeed, but it gets a bit murky when you consider that the 'Deposit of Faith' also included Tradition and not just easily referenced Bible passages.

It isn't murky to the Holy Spirit - and thats who guides the Magisterium.
It may seem murky to you, but you aren't part of the Magisterium.

 

[Benedicta00]

Wow.

Please…

Everything I posted is true. One has a choice in life- to accept what they are taught by those who have authority given to them from on high to teach or they can teach themselves.

 

[Benedicta00]

I never claimed slavery in the Bible equates to slavery of the Africans by the early Americans, for example.

However, I seriously doubt slaves in the Bible got paid.

No, but they got fed and I seriously doubt the average slave was kept against his will and treated badly. This is what the Church condemns, this is what was never taught as okay, if it was then just cite and this can all be over with.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

No, but they got fed and I seriously doubt the average slave was kept against his will and treated badly. This is what the Church condemns, this is what was never taught as okay, if it was then just cite and this can all be over with.

So they didn't get paid and it wasn't just a "job" as we think of a job today?

 

[Benedicta00]

So they didn't get paid and it wasn't just a "job" as we think of a job today?

Oh boy…

Was anything then in the OT 4000 years ago the same as it is today? Things do evolve but the basic concept is the same. It is when you mistreat someone, hold them against their will and force them to serve you and give them nothing in return but enough to keep them alive just so they can serve you the next day. It is using people for you own gain. That is what we exclusively now call slavery and it is condemned. We don't call anything else slavery now. We do not call working off a debt instead of paying a debt cash for cash slavery, we call it boardering, we don't call being incarcerated working in the fields as slavery but we call it serving time with hard labor. These are not wrong, but are a form of slavery.

I so, don't understand your point. The slavery we are familiar with is condemned and it always was. But in the bible slavery didn't always mean abuse being held against a person's will.

Does this answer you?

 

[geocajun]

I admire your patience Michelle.

 

[nyj]

What is morally correct in one era may be incorrect in another, given changing circumstances.

Am I totally off here?

Morality is objective. Ergo, it cannot change.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I admire your patience Michelle.

I admire her integrity and honesty...it makes for a more fruitful discussion, doesn't it geocajun?

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Morality is objective. Ergo, it cannot change.

Why is usury no longer a sin? Honest question, in case you are skeptical.

 

[geocajun]

I admire her integrity and honesty...it makes for a more fruitful discussion, doesn't it geocajun?

Pardon me?

 

[geocajun]

Usury - If the Church taught that 2 + 2 equals 4, and then the world somehow changes the value of 2 to actually be 6.
It would be wrong to run around saying the Church changed its teaching on 2+2 simply because the world has changed the value of '2'.
This is the logic of the red herring of usury. The value and object of money has changed.
Usury is still a sin, however the potential for this sin to occur is diminished.

 

[nyj]

Why is usury no longer a sin? Honest question, in case you are skeptical.

A change in financial institutions does not result in a change of morality.

 

[plainswolf]

It seems a lot of Catholics are afraid of the idea that the Church has ever changed Her opinion on matter of faith and morals...as if this would make Her claim to infallibility suspect.

Am I right?

But circumstances of our world change, don't they? What is morally correct in one era may be incorrect in another, given changing circumstances.

If things couldn't change, why would Jesus give the Church the authority to "bind" and "loose." This implies change by its very nature, no?

Sometimes I think our inability to admit things have changed due to circumstantial change creates a stumbling block when people come across changes.

Am I totally off here?

I don't believe the Church has changed in Faith and Morals, but rather the faithful have changed their views upon these matters. Or they simply are ignorant of them[I don't mean ignorance as a bad word].

I see the Church has changed quite abit in disciplinary matters, but not dogmatic ones.

J.M.J.
plainswolf

 

[nyj]

Here's an attempt to explain usury.

Say someone, back in the Middle Ages was loaned a goat. Usury would have been to say: repayment will be two goats. In an age where there was no such thing as "inflation" or "cost of living" and the dollar didn't fluctuate on a day to day basis, anything other than the returning of a goat for a goat would be usury.

However, today, a dollar lent today is not a dollar tomorrow. If a person lends you a dollar, if they had not lent it to you, tomorrow they may have $1.10. Therefore, you are obligated, for borrowing that dollar, to return the proper value of that original dollar to the owner upon repayment. That is why charging reasonable interest, is not usury.

 

[NewToLife]

However, today, a dollar lent today is not a dollar tomorrow. If a person lends you a dollar, if they had not lent it to you, tomorrow they may have $1.10. Therefore, you are obligated, for borrowing that dollar, to return the proper value of that original dollar to the owner upon repayment. That is why charging reasonable interest, is not usury.

Just an observation but no financial institution works as you describr, they will always charge enough interest to make a profit regardless of inflation.