Evolving Adam

Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Evolving Adam

Well, what can be said.

 The topic of discussion---the evolving reality of Adam.

Lemme see if I got this unnerstood. "Evolving Reality"--this seems to be a constant problem with religions and politics.

Q- Can reality evolve from one reality to another.

 A- If reality can evolve, how is one to know if the reality that the present reality is supposed to have evolved from---"was ever a reality".

 B- Can the former that 'was" the reality ever "really" evolve into "actual" reality.

 C- If so, how so?

 D- Can an untruth be used to find the truth, if the evidence of the untruth bears no semblence of reality in the first instance, IOW can a non reality ever become a "reality".

What sayeth ye

 

http://www.catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Truth is truth. It cannot

Truth is truth. It cannot evolve unless the nature of the universe can render truth obsolete, which so far as we know is not the case.

The church changes elements of canon as those elements become obsolete or undesirable, but it was never true to begin with. It's merely an act of self preservation. Within 5 generations at most there's noone left to remember the old canon, so the fact there was a change is largely forgotten.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Agree.

Vastet wrote:
Truth is truth. It cannot evolve unless the nature of the universe can render truth obsolete, which so far as we know is not the case. The church changes elements of canon as those elements become obsolete or undesirable, but it was never true to begin with. It's merely an act of self preservation. Within 5 generations at most there's noone left to remember the old canon, so the fact there was a change is largely forgotten.

You get 1 point toward becoming an Old Seer.

Didja ever stop and think---How can a psychiatrist vote. This is a mazing. Wouldn't one think that he/she-or whatever he/she wants to be these days, would Psycho analyze the one they're voting for. Why would he/she etc vote for someone they know is nuts, and as I see it, polititians are nutty self indulgent coniving con artist megalamaniacs. Doncha think a Psychoanalist woud see that. How can a Psycho type be out-witted by a polititian. Someone didn't get to the station on time and missed the brain train. Baffeling ain't it. Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You can't really analyse

You can't really analyse someone from public appearances alone. If that's all you have to go by you can basically crowd all politicians into one category: narcissism.

Plus, it doesn't really matter what your analysis concludes compared to what a politician is campaigning on. You could conclude one candidate is an awesome person and the other is a sociopath, but if the awesome person believes in magic and prophecy and that jailing 99% of the population is a good thing, while the sociopath believes in science and evidence and rehabilitation, I'd have to go with the sociopath. And hope he didn't become a dictator.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
After spending time

and lots of it, comparing what religions believe as to determining the differences---they're all the same. On any given subject that can be questioned they leave a door open to be possibly right in the future. There's no requirement to any longer believe Adam and Eve actually existed as long as (as it turns out) one believes in the central tennants of the religion. This leaves the door open to be right on evolution "if need be" at some future time. That way they can claim anything----as long as---- a person leaves their mental door open to accept whatever the future claims may be.

Well, Vastet, you are correct. The next 3rd or 4th generation will believe what they're told as long as they don't go back and examine previous claims. Today Gaileleo would be just fine and dandy, so why did he have to spend half his life under house arrest if he was right. Well, a particular religion  can claim that never at anytime was an infallable determination made as to the earth orbiting the sun, so, it wasn't church "doctrine". No religion can be wrong because (it turns out) that they never actually ever stated that " they were wrong " "or could possibly be wrong" , on the first count. Apparently all claims are temporarily correct. ????????  ???????.

Somehow, this makes sense to people.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
An absolute, I propose-

Reality cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be subverted.