So part of the standard story that you get in Christian theology is that everyone is sinful and requires redemption from God. But why is everyone sinful?
Here are a few ways to answer this question.
Everyone is already sinful at conception, birth, or whenever you have the emergence of a human person.
Everyone will eventually sin at some point in their lives, when they do, they are sinful and need God's redemption.
Let's start with that second answer. Is it true that EVERYONE will eventually sin? Is it possible for someone to go their whole life without actually sinning? It seems that the general consensus answer among theologians is no, although I am not entirely sure. If the answer is no, then the next question is, "why not?"
One answer is that everyone is born with a defect that will inevitably result in the committing of a sin of some sort. Okay, so where did this defect come from?
Now we have two choices, either people are sinful, i.e. guilty before God, right from the start, or they have a defect that will inevitably lead to sin. Either option raises the same basic question: why?
The standard answer is that we inherited this condition from Adam, i.e. the first man and also the first person (along with Eve) to sin against God. Because of Adam's sin, we are also sinful. This is puzzling. Why should I, or anyone else, be held responsible for the acts of one man (and woman)?
Let's suppose that it is indeed the case that I am sinful before God because of the disobedience of Adam. it seems to follow that I am in some responsible for what he did. If that is true, then shouldn't it also be true that I am responsible for the acts of my parents, grandparents, and all of my ancestors? If not, why not? Why is the case with Adam exceptional? How is it that the sin of Adam is transmitted through the generations, but no one else's?
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Travel and technology
Traveling, i.e. going to from point A to point B, was initially done out of the need to find food. You traveled to follow herds of buffalo, or to find where the edible plants are in season. I'm guessing that travel was done initially by foot. Then come animal domestication, followed by mechanical forms of travel.
Technological advances in travel allow for more people to travel greater distances in shorter periods of time. What sort of cultural consequences are there to technological advances in travel?
As societies became agrarian, groups traveled in order to look for arable land. It was inevitable that as more people were able come into contact with other groups. This led to such consequences as trade, conflict, cooperation, etc.
Technological advances in travel are accompanied by at least two cultural consequences.
First, travelers are able to physically interact with more people. The further you can go in a shorter period of time, the more opportunities you will have to interact with more people.
Second, technological advances in travel allow individuals to travel for leisure, rather than out of necessity. This comes in at least two forms. First, the mode of travel itself can be a recreational activity, like horseback riding, driving, flying airplanes, etc. Second, destinations can now be purely recreational, like camping, going to the beach, skiing, etc.
Now, suppose that something like teleportation were possible. Suppose that people could travel anywhere in the world in a moment's time. It would take me just as much time to travel from New York to China as it would take me to walk from my bedroom to my kitchen. At this point, it seems that there is no longer travel in the sense that there is some kind of process or journey. Older forms of travel are now done solely out of recreation. What would society be like if everyone were able to travel via instantaneous teleportation?
Technological advances in travel allow for more people to travel greater distances in shorter periods of time. What sort of cultural consequences are there to technological advances in travel?
As societies became agrarian, groups traveled in order to look for arable land. It was inevitable that as more people were able come into contact with other groups. This led to such consequences as trade, conflict, cooperation, etc.
Technological advances in travel are accompanied by at least two cultural consequences.
First, travelers are able to physically interact with more people. The further you can go in a shorter period of time, the more opportunities you will have to interact with more people.
Second, technological advances in travel allow individuals to travel for leisure, rather than out of necessity. This comes in at least two forms. First, the mode of travel itself can be a recreational activity, like horseback riding, driving, flying airplanes, etc. Second, destinations can now be purely recreational, like camping, going to the beach, skiing, etc.
Now, suppose that something like teleportation were possible. Suppose that people could travel anywhere in the world in a moment's time. It would take me just as much time to travel from New York to China as it would take me to walk from my bedroom to my kitchen. At this point, it seems that there is no longer travel in the sense that there is some kind of process or journey. Older forms of travel are now done solely out of recreation. What would society be like if everyone were able to travel via instantaneous teleportation?
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Substantitive vs. shallow ethnic identification
I identify as a Korean-American. I do so simply because I am an American citizen, and I believe that my ancestry goes back through Korea for quite some time.
I would imagine that this is typically how people identify with respect to their ethnicity. However, there are other ways of thinking about this.
Suppose you have an individual whose biological parents have ancestries in Korea, but who was adopted and raised by a white American couple. Suppose also that you have an individual whose biological parents have ancestries in Europe, but who was adopted by a Korean couple in Korea. Who would you say was more "Korean?" Do both have equal claims at identifying as Korean?
When it comes to identifying as an ethnicity or nationality, genealogy matters, of course. But if all you have is genealogy, then it seems that your identification is shallow. Substantive ethnic identification involves more than just being born into a certain family tree. One has to be deeply embedded in the culture of said ethnicity.
There are at least three ways of engaging in culture.
1. Consumption and production of commodities
This includes stuff like making and and eating an ethnicity's food, wearing ethnic clothing, consuming entertainment produced by that ethnicity, etc.
2. Compliance with norms, customs, and practices
This is stuff like dining etiquette, rules of the road, entertaining guests, participating in religious and social rituals like marriages and funerals, etc.
3. Language
This is self-explanatory. This is attaining fluency in the language associated with the ethnicity in question.
I listed the above in what I take to be the order of shallowest forms of engagement to the most substantive. It seems clear to me that the most substantive way of really engaging in a culture is to master its language. In fact, you won't even be able to do the other two very well without fluency in the ethnicity's language. Language allows one to understand an ethnicity's perspective and worldview. I hold that without fluency in the language, ethnic identification remains shallow.
This means that although I identify as Korean-American, my ethnic identification as Korean is pretty shallow. I can speak some Korean, but my language skill is pretty rudimentary. I eat Korean food, know what to do during Korean holidays, know how to interact with my elders, etc. But all this is merely rote behavior. I don't have the ability to read Korean at a high level, so I can't read Korean commentary on Confucius. Nor can I read the famous Korean poets and storytellers. My linguistic limitations prevent me from really taking on the Korean mindset, and thus keeps me from really identifying with Korean culture.
I would imagine that this is typically how people identify with respect to their ethnicity. However, there are other ways of thinking about this.
Suppose you have an individual whose biological parents have ancestries in Korea, but who was adopted and raised by a white American couple. Suppose also that you have an individual whose biological parents have ancestries in Europe, but who was adopted by a Korean couple in Korea. Who would you say was more "Korean?" Do both have equal claims at identifying as Korean?
When it comes to identifying as an ethnicity or nationality, genealogy matters, of course. But if all you have is genealogy, then it seems that your identification is shallow. Substantive ethnic identification involves more than just being born into a certain family tree. One has to be deeply embedded in the culture of said ethnicity.
There are at least three ways of engaging in culture.
1. Consumption and production of commodities
This includes stuff like making and and eating an ethnicity's food, wearing ethnic clothing, consuming entertainment produced by that ethnicity, etc.
2. Compliance with norms, customs, and practices
This is stuff like dining etiquette, rules of the road, entertaining guests, participating in religious and social rituals like marriages and funerals, etc.
3. Language
This is self-explanatory. This is attaining fluency in the language associated with the ethnicity in question.
I listed the above in what I take to be the order of shallowest forms of engagement to the most substantive. It seems clear to me that the most substantive way of really engaging in a culture is to master its language. In fact, you won't even be able to do the other two very well without fluency in the ethnicity's language. Language allows one to understand an ethnicity's perspective and worldview. I hold that without fluency in the language, ethnic identification remains shallow.
This means that although I identify as Korean-American, my ethnic identification as Korean is pretty shallow. I can speak some Korean, but my language skill is pretty rudimentary. I eat Korean food, know what to do during Korean holidays, know how to interact with my elders, etc. But all this is merely rote behavior. I don't have the ability to read Korean at a high level, so I can't read Korean commentary on Confucius. Nor can I read the famous Korean poets and storytellers. My linguistic limitations prevent me from really taking on the Korean mindset, and thus keeps me from really identifying with Korean culture.