i think the only one i can agree with you on there is death. and even the means of death have changed over time. but death, in general (the fact that all life comes to an end), is something that is constant and static. however, everything that we understand about death, the actual "data" of death in our lives, always changes. people are always dying in different ways, at different times in their lives. our understanding of death comes through these stories, all of which are differnet, all of which have various impacts on our life. somehow through all these experiences, we formulate the idea of this larger concept of death, although this hard and fast concept never shows itself directly; death is always filtered through the story of an individual.
yes, but your maxima got worn down, and the components themselves changed with time. the appearance surely changed. so the product itself does change.
maybe what you're saying is that the 'design' of your year's maxima didn't change. that's true. but then again, what do we consider to be the design of an item? if the 'design' in this case is the design of the 1996 nissan maxima, then i guess it doesn't change. but it also doesn't exist any longer, since the design is really only relative to it being used. however, if we view the 'design' in this case as the design of the nissan maxima (the design of that specific model), then of course it changes.
hmm...you're right rick in that your year's maxima never evolved. didn't catch that the first time. but it DID change. what DID evolve with regards to the maxima? the design of the model.
so, specific instances of some object tend to degrade with time, while the general blueprint of that object seems to evolve with time. (they'd expel me here at school for making such large, unjustified statements like that)
I think James may have stumped you on this one Craig.
As for the Maxima, I was only mentioning something that not Evolve (it defintiely devolved and changed) per question 1.
I am sure I could come up with some creationist BS to go along with the analogy, but since I don't buy into it myself I decided to not antagonize you with such an analogy.
plus the fact that you'd be wrong. haha. how you like them apples?
really, though, the point of this post was to begin to talk about the fact that everything in the physical realm, at least that we are aware of, changes. that change may be deconstructive, like your maxima, or constructive, like evolution. regardless of the nature, however, everything changes.
therefore, we also need to start looking at much of our commonly held belief systems as dynamic entities, rather than the static entities they are commonly described as. we need to realize that, as everything in this physical realm changes, so does our knowledge of the world, and our interpretations of history, which are two of the main ingredients in forming our theological perspectives. in this light, we can start to look at many aspects of the Christian faith as processes or characteristics that have evolved over time due to the pressing needs of followers during a certain period. one of the easiest examples of this (which i learned about from you, rick) is the creation of the two-service sunday (morning and evening services) along with sunday school. there's nothing necessarily Biblical about this aspect of churches, and yet this aspect seems almost set in stone for a majority of the prostestant church.
it seems to me that one hallmark of fundamentalism is the resistance to questioning what already is. however, if what already is hasn't always been, then how can it really be something that hasn't evolved out of a necessity? across the spectrum, Christians are concerned with elevating the "eternal truths", with learning more about living a life dedicated to the "I AM", the one entity in our lives that doesn't change. yet, given the fact that our theology derives from one man living in a specific time period (that is, Jesus), how can we claim to know anything about the "eternal" natures of God? we talk about God as unchanging, and yet the very source text we use to derive this conclusion paints two, dramatically different pictures (OT & NT) of the same God! where's the consistency? what is eternal about this? i think that if we were to stop talking about God, and rather start talking about our understanding of God (two dramatically different perspectives; one assumes complete knowledge, the other assumes limited knowledge), then we could start to get somewhere, and things might actually start to look consistent. while God might not change, our understanding of God does change, and certainly has evolved over time.
10 comments:
dogmatic fundamentailist belief. pick your fundamentalism.
death and taxes.
i think the only one i can agree with you on there is death. and even the means of death have changed over time. but death, in general (the fact that all life comes to an end), is something that is constant and static. however, everything that we understand about death, the actual "data" of death in our lives, always changes. people are always dying in different ways, at different times in their lives. our understanding of death comes through these stories, all of which are differnet, all of which have various impacts on our life. somehow through all these experiences, we formulate the idea of this larger concept of death, although this hard and fast concept never shows itself directly; death is always filtered through the story of an individual.
any others?
any product made and then sold no longer evolves.
My 1996 Nissan Maxima never evolved. Sure, Nissan evolved, but not my Nissan. It was in a perpetual mode of moving in the opposite way.
yes, but your maxima got worn down, and the components themselves changed with time. the appearance surely changed. so the product itself does change.
maybe what you're saying is that the 'design' of your year's maxima didn't change. that's true. but then again, what do we consider to be the design of an item? if the 'design' in this case is the design of the 1996 nissan maxima, then i guess it doesn't change. but it also doesn't exist any longer, since the design is really only relative to it being used. however, if we view the 'design' in this case as the design of the nissan maxima (the design of that specific model), then of course it changes.
comic interlude:
Q: does chuck norris change?
A: NO! (followed by a roundhouse kick to the face)
hmm...you're right rick in that your year's maxima never evolved. didn't catch that the first time. but it DID change. what DID evolve with regards to the maxima? the design of the model.
so, specific instances of some object tend to degrade with time, while the general blueprint of that object seems to evolve with time. (they'd expel me here at school for making such large, unjustified statements like that)
Twinkies
I think James may have stumped you on this one Craig.
As for the Maxima, I was only mentioning something that not Evolve (it defintiely devolved and changed) per question 1.
I am sure I could come up with some creationist BS to go along with the analogy, but since I don't buy into it myself I decided to not antagonize you with such an analogy.
That is what friends are for.
plus the fact that you'd be wrong. haha. how you like them apples?
really, though, the point of this post was to begin to talk about the fact that everything in the physical realm, at least that we are aware of, changes. that change may be deconstructive, like your maxima, or constructive, like evolution. regardless of the nature, however, everything changes.
therefore, we also need to start looking at much of our commonly held belief systems as dynamic entities, rather than the static entities they are commonly described as. we need to realize that, as everything in this physical realm changes, so does our knowledge of the world, and our interpretations of history, which are two of the main ingredients in forming our theological perspectives. in this light, we can start to look at many aspects of the Christian faith as processes or characteristics that have evolved over time due to the pressing needs of followers during a certain period. one of the easiest examples of this (which i learned about from you, rick) is the creation of the two-service sunday (morning and evening services) along with sunday school. there's nothing necessarily Biblical about this aspect of churches, and yet this aspect seems almost set in stone for a majority of the prostestant church.
it seems to me that one hallmark of fundamentalism is the resistance to questioning what already is. however, if what already is hasn't always been, then how can it really be something that hasn't evolved out of a necessity? across the spectrum, Christians are concerned with elevating the "eternal truths", with learning more about living a life dedicated to the "I AM", the one entity in our lives that doesn't change. yet, given the fact that our theology derives from one man living in a specific time period (that is, Jesus), how can we claim to know anything about the "eternal" natures of God? we talk about God as unchanging, and yet the very source text we use to derive this conclusion paints two, dramatically different pictures (OT & NT) of the same God! where's the consistency? what is eternal about this? i think that if we were to stop talking about God, and rather start talking about our understanding of God (two dramatically different perspectives; one assumes complete knowledge, the other assumes limited knowledge), then we could start to get somewhere, and things might actually start to look consistent. while God might not change, our understanding of God does change, and certainly has evolved over time.
death is illusional... it has lost its sting.
Post a Comment