# Christians - What EXACTLY is 'Original Sin'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2002, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312 "2002-03-27T03:30:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/21 "2002-03-28T18:32:21Z")
> [@](#): > > As to why it is that, in order for God to forgive us collectively for this ancient act, God required God to sacrifice Himself to appease Himself, uh… > > ::holds head in hands:: St. Anselm answered this question in the _Cur Deus Homo_, or “Why God Man.” I do not know whether this is the church’s final answer, as it were, but as far as I understand it quieted the incesssant soteriology debates of the early middle ages. He argues in dialogue form that the OS was so great that no man could ever possibly atone for it. Yet because man _fell_, it behooves him to make an atoning sacrifice and not someone else in his place. God, on the other hand, has the power to forgive but not the necessity. God’s power + Man’s Obligation = Jesus Christ. Neither God alone nor Man could atone for the OS, which contemporary catholics viewed as a major cosmic rift. So God and Man doubled up, as it were, in the form of JC. I do not know if this argument is still relevant to Catholicism today. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/22 "2002-03-28T18:41:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Jesus did not die for our “sins”, if by sins you mean that we are responsible for our own sins. How could someone have died two thousand years ago, for what you did this morning? Uh, are you imposing a strict temporal definition on what can affect anything else? I trust that since you enjoy freedom today, you’re firmly convinced that nobody who gave their lives on the battlefields of the Revolutionary, Civil, or World Wars has anything to do with whether or not you do? Assuming you disagree with that rhetorical question, can you see where a payment tendered in advance by a third party can cover debts incurred by someone at a later date? That, in essence, is what the Substitutionary Atonement to which you object suggests. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/23 "2002-03-28T18:52:01Z")
Furthermore, to God, all of our transient human time is quite simultaneous. In God’s time, the only time that is cosmically relevant, JC _did_ die for every sin that every human has ever committed. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/24 "2002-03-28T22:16:06Z")
Are we still talking about “original sin”? I was not hijacking this thread to argue strictly on the dying for sins committed two thousand years later. My contention was that for many “original sin” is part and parcel to Jesus being our savior. **Polycarp** in that quote of mine, I go on to say that what is needed is the concept of “original sin” to make it believable. However you’re understanding that I did not even buy that concept is correct . > [@](#): > > I trust that since you enjoy freedom today, you’re firmly convinced that nobody who gave their lives on the battlefields of the Revolutionary, Civil, or World Wars has anything to do with whether or not you do? Those who gave their lives did so to protect freedom for themselves and for me, that is correct. The difference is that if I do not continue to be vigilent or be willing to give my life for freedom, then it will be lost. If Jesus had died to do away with the stigma of “original sin”, I would be in his debt, but I would also be responsible for the sins I commit. Good meat for thought, but not convincing to me. > [@](#): > > can you see where a payment tendered in advance by a third party can cover debts incurred by someone at a later date? That, in essence, is what the Substitutionary Atonement to which you object suggests. If I set up some sort of trust to pay the debts of my descendants there would have to be some sort of limits to that trust and one would be that there would be a time limit. But then again God has His own legal system, so I will look to others, since I am not the only one that has made this accusation. One person I’d like to quote is **Rev. Leslie Weatherhead** the minister of London’s largest Methodist church, many years ago. He wrote **The Christian Agnostic** and devoted an entire chapter to this subject. Unfortunately, I cannot find any sites that have any information to cite. I was able to find a better known authority on the subject: **Bishop Spong**. I believe you are far more acquainted with him than I am. The quotes come from [**The New Reformation - Revisiting the Meaning of Christ**](http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox20698.html). > [@](#): > > Perhaps the most challenging and disturbing realization of all comes when believers begin to recognize that the primary way in which the death of Jesus has been traditionally understood is in terms of human sacrifice. That is hardly an appealing concept in our day. The words so central to Christian self-understanding, like “Jesus died for my sins,” or “Jesus paid the price of sin on the cross of Calvary,” or “I have been saved by the blood of Christ,” are nothing short of ludicrous when we recognize what they mean. They assume a literalness about various elements of the ancient Christian myth. He then summarizes the “myth”. Then continues… > [@](#): > > We begin that Reformation with the recognition that we are post-Darwinian people. We know that creation is neither finished nor perfect. Human life is still in an evolving process. New galaxies are still being formed . So the definition of human beings as fallen from an original perfection becomes unreal. Reality for us is that we emerged from the darkness of our evolutionary struggle and we have been moving for billions of years into > higher and higher levels of consciousness. What that says to me is that we have a different worldview than the people who wrote the bible. > [@](#): > > Thus the tale of a savior who rescued us from a fall that never happened and who has restored us to a perfection we never possessed is not likely either to communicate or to appeal to modern minds. Equally unappealing will be a liturgy designed to reenact each Sunday that saving sacrifice of the cross which required the death of the divine Son as a ransom. **Rev. Weatherhead** , **Bishop Spong** (or myself) are looking for a _reformation_ in the church, not doing away with it. > [@](#): > > The idolatry of ancient and outmoded explanations must be broken open or we stand to lose the wonder that makes the Christ so radically important. Will Rogers (a proclaimed atheist) once said something to the effect that “Christianity would be better off if it worried more about what Jesus said and did and less about how he came and went.” I myself concur with those sentiments. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/25 "2002-04-01T16:16:11Z")
It was not my intention, **kniz** , to argue against the point you are making here, but to contrapose the traditional view, as much for clarity’s sake as anything else. To a large extent, I tend to agree with you (which no doubt fails to surprise you, I’m sure). ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/26 "2002-04-01T18:08:11Z")
Steve Wright: > [@](#): > > “Original Sin” is the unavoidable downside of free will. Justinh: > [@](#): > > Humans are basicly animals and animals don’t go to heaven. You have to escape the animal part. Its a constant fight to lift yourself out of the animal kingdom toward the kingdom of God. I agree. My crackpot theory is this: Animal behavior is ruled entirely by instinct, which is perfect obedience to the will of God since (you might say) He programmed the ‘software’. But when humans evolved the capicity for free will, we became capable of sin. Here’s where it gets wierd: A young Mesopotamian couple ran away from their tribal village, found a nice little medow, shed their clothes, and proceeded to frolic (and/or cavort). Running out of food, they found these mushrooms growing at the foot of a tree. Instinctively, one is wary of eating mushrooms just as one is wary of snakes. Certain foods are ‘forbidden’ to certain animals because they’re poisonous. But Amanda and Steve were able to override this concern, saying “what the heck” and gobbled 'em up. As luck would have it, they turned out not to be poisonous toadstools but psychedelic shrooms, dude. Saying your “eyes were opened” and that you “knew good and evil” is a good summation of a psychedelic drug trip, and you also become extremely self-conscious, i.e. paranoid. This incident was remembered and incorporated into the cultural mythology with the usual distortions. That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it until I come down.😃 ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/27 "2002-04-01T20:55:19Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Polycarp_From the Articles of Religion (c. 1560, Church of England): > > IX Of Original or Birth-sin. > Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit Ya gotta feel friendly toward any church that uses smilies in their Articles of Religion. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Mambo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a587f6/32.png) [@Mambo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mambo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/28 "2002-04-01T22:35:32Z")
Happyheathen, I am Coptic. Just curious what experience you had with it. Bobkitty, Not all churches believe in the Immaculate Conception (Mary born without sin). The Coptic Orthodox church adamantly denounces that belief, although it does believe that Mary is greatest among women. As for Original Sin: When Adam and Eve were created, they were created perfect in potential. They were in commune with God. However, when they ate of the fruit they were no longer perfect and became seperated from God. Good and Evil were simply laid out by God: a) Good is not eating of the tree, b) Evil is eating of the tree. As we know, A&E chose option b which created a chasm between the perfect world of God and the imperfect, evil world of man. Had God’s original comandment been to not eat Kung Pao Chicken and A&E ate Kung Pao Chicken, that would have been the original sin. It didn’t matter what God commanded them to do, the disobedience of man against God is evil and disobeying Him would only seperate man from God until God offered us a bridge to cross the chasm from evil to goodness–Jesus Christ ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2002, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/29 "2002-04-02T00:00:18Z")
**Kaylasdad** – to paraphrase Article XVIII, 😛 😃 ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2002, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/30 "2002-04-02T09:17:42Z")
Certainly you can sin by being too original (the way some people dress for the oscars comes to mind) but you can also sin by being too un-original and boring. As always, the virtue is in the middle ground. Go now in peace and sin no more. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2002, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/31 "2002-04-02T17:04:13Z")
There seems to be a misconception that “original sin” is a fundamentalist concept. It is not. (At least not in any fundamentalist church with which I’m familiar.) I grew up in a (very) fundamentalist Southern church, and I never heard of “original sin” until I interacted with Catholics in my adult years. The concept was completely alien to me. The teaching in my church (church of Christ) was that children were sinless, and would go to heaven if they died. Only those who had reached the “age of discretion” had to worry about Hell. What was the “age of discretion”? Differed for every person, but basically, the age at which you are presumed to fully understand the difference between right and wrong, and are therefore capable of “sinning”. When you reached that age, you were expected to be baptised for remission of sins. See? No concept of “original sin.” Are there any fundamentalist churches which do believe in “original sin”? If so, which ones? For the record, these days I’m an atheist. Just don’t want to see my well-meaning fundamentalist friends unduly tarred as baby-damners. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2002, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/32 "2002-04-02T20:02:42Z")
Well, Southern Baptists and Pentecostals (as in Jimmy Swaggert) come immediately to mind. There are many fundamentalists in the Methodist Church (my denomination), especially after they united with the EUB’s. They all believe in “original sin”. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2002, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/33 "2002-04-02T20:22:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kniz \* > \*\*Well, Southern Baptists and Pentecostals (as in Jimmy Swaggert) come immediately to mind. There are many fundamentalists in the Methodist Church (my denomination), especially after they united with the EUB’s. They all believe in “original sin”. \*\* Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2002, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/34 "2002-04-02T21:26:58Z")
I’m not doubting you, **kniz**. I’d just like to see some cites on this doctrine. My impression has always been that “Original Sin” was Catholic doctrine, but hey, maybe I’m wrong. Or perhaps it’s just a question of semantics. Perhaps the Protestant churches you listed, while believing in something very much like the concept of “Original Sin” just don’t throw the phrase around as much. The churches of Christ certainly believe that all are sinful. However, they do not believe that we are sinners when we are born. Rather, they believe that it is inevitable that all people will sin in their lifetimes. Important distinction, I think. Do the Methodists, Baptists and Pentecostals believe that we are stained by sin at birth? (And what _does_ happen to dead babies in those faiths?) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2002, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/35 "2002-04-02T22:18:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > **Do the Methodists, Baptists and Pentecostals believe that we are stained by sin at birth?** From the London Baptist Confession of Faith…I’m not sure all Baptist churches use it, but… > [@](#): > > Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them. For from this, death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. > > They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and their corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. Their descendants are therefore conceived in sin, and are by nature the children of wrath, the servants of sin, and the subjects of death and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus sets them free. > > All actual transgressions proceed from this original corruption, by which we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil. > > During this life the corruption of nature remains in those who are regenerated, and although it is pardoned and mortified through Christ, yet this corrupt nature and all its motions are truly and properly sinful ---
**Author:** ![Lucki\_Chaarms](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lucki\_Chaarms](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucki_Chaarms)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/36 "2002-04-03T01:58:20Z")
I think that taken as an ALLEGORY, the Adam/Eve/Garden Of Eden Story is really quite beautiful and true. These two people have a life in this simple, sacred place where everything is taken care of. They make the choice to “eat of the fruit of knowledge”. Their situation hasn’t changed as of this point, but they now know enough to see things differently. They find themselves naked and seek clothing, etc. Was their life better living under these circumstances in ignorant bliss or is it better to aspire to be something higher, but lose that innocence forever? That’s how I define original sin. Maybe at some point we had some kind of basic innocence and lived simply. Humans as a species moved beyond that, and now the knowledge we have means that we will see our insignificance in the vastness of creation, and without a larger force to guide us we will always be lost. You don’t have a choice about this: you will grow up in a world full of wonderful technology and astounding knowledge, but in exchange for that you will never be truly _innocent_. The fundies look at it differently: the first people did something bad and as such we have a smudge on our souls from the beginning. God can’t have smudged souls in his presence, so everyone is really screwed. Fortunately enough, Jesus can be your cosmic dry-cleaner and through him you can get a sparkly clean soul and go live with God. I like my version better 🙂 LC ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/37 "2002-04-03T02:14:39Z")
For Guinny 😉 and others…Andrew Greeley’s [take](http://www.usao.edu/~facshaferi/greeley/mysteries5.htm) on Paradise Lost, and salvation. > [@](#): > > The “paradise” which was “lost” by human sin is a relationship between humankind and God in which, despite our mortal, creaturely, and human propensity to fear and distrust, humans still stood in a relationship with God in which they accepted him as trustworthy and gave themselves to him in love, and through him, gave themselves to one another.  Whether and how such an historic paradise may have existed, however, is not the point of Christian revelation which is concerned with the restoration of human faith in God’s loving trustworthiness, through his self-revelation in  Jesus–and in particular, in the death and resurrection of  Jesus. (Some Catholic writers suggest that the paradise story looks both to the past events and also to the present and future opportunities which God offers humankind for reconciliation and unity–particularly through his self-disclosure in  Jesus–opportunities which humankind repeatedly rejects but which God repeatedly offers again.) Such a “restoration” recreates the situation as it should be, whether or not it ever in fact had existed in the past.  Reconciliation in love and trust is a fundamental longing of humankind and the basic aspiration of human nature–even if our finitude and our resulting fear and distrust impede our efforts toward such a goal.  The underlying flaw in human nature, its basic and tragic weakness, its essential deprivation is that its propensity to suspicion and distrust conflicts with its propensity to openness and trust.  Its self-defending hatred conflicts with its self-giving love. and > [@](#): > > 1. Adam, theologians agree, is used in the Scriptures as both an individual and as a corporate personality.  The sin of Adam, then, is both individual and corporate.  In the past, perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on the individual aspect of this sinfulness and not enough on its corporate nature.  Humankind as a collectivity is sinful–as one need only read the morning papers to observe. We are born into a race that has piled up a terrible record of sins throughout its past, and that record is part of our cultural and psychic inheritance.  In a very real sense the sins of parents are visited upon their children, because the children’s personalities are so much the result of parental behavior and the cultural influences of the society in which children are born.  It is a badly flawed heritage that is passed on to us.  It is a critically defective human race into which we come.  The sinfulness began with the beginning of the human race and has gone on until now.  The result is a heritage burdened with evil.  However, countervailing forces of good have also been at work, alleviating the burden if not eliminating it. > > The real problem is not why our first parents sinned, but why there is sin at all.  This is the restatement in the human domain of the mystery of evil, or more properly the mystery of good and evil.  While the mystery cannot be resolved, we must at least say that in the case of the human creature, the capacity for freedom made necessary the possibility of evil. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/38 "2002-04-03T18:58:17Z")
Mambo: > [@](#): > > Good and Evil were simply laid out by God: > > a) Good is not eating of the tree, > b) Evil is eating of the tree. > > As we know, A&E chose option b which created a chasm between the perfect world of God and the imperfect, evil world of man. Had God’s original comandment been to not eat Kung Pao Chicken and A&E ate Kung Pao Chicken, that would have been the original sin. It didn’t matter what God commanded them to do, the disobedience of man against God is evil and disobeying Him would only seperate man from God. This doesn’t make a lot of sense. Why would God regard something completely trivial as ‘evil’ when there is plenty of real harm that humans are capable of? It would have made much more sense for God to have said, “You may eat of the flesh of the dodo bird, but don’t kill them all or else they’ll be gone forever and I’ll be Pissed”. Furthermore, it’s the Tree of _Knowledge_. This is not simply a case of tempting people with sweets to test their self-restraint. When they ate the fruit, their “eyes were opened” they were “like gods, knowing good and evil”. This suggests sudden enlightenment. Why would the fruit be imbued with such properties if this is a purely ‘generic’ question of obedience vs diobedience? I think equating knowledge with sin is the result of the metaphor becoming garbled and missing pieces. Where do _you_ get _your_ kung pao? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/39 "2002-04-03T20:20:39Z")
Pentecostal [ARTICLES OF FAITH We Believe…](http://www.newhorizonsiphc.com/about.html) > [@](#): > > that the Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and perfect man, who actually suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile the Father to us, and to make atonement, not only for our actual guilt, but also for original sin. North Pointe Baptist Church, Kansas City, Missouri [A Catechism for Boys and Girls Part 1 - Questions about God, Man and Sin](http://www.npbcwebsite.org/bgcat1.html) > [@](#): > > Q. What effect did the sin of Adam have on all mankind? A. All mankind is born in a state of sin and misery > (Ps. 51:5; Rm. 5:12, 18, 19; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22; 1 Jn. 5:19). > Q. What do we inherit from Adam as a result of this original sin? > A. A sinful nature (1 Kings 8:46; Ps. 14:2, 3; 58:3; Eccl. 9:3; Mt. 15:18-20; Jn. 2:24, 25; Rm. 8:7). Methodist [Methodist Book of Discipline Article VII.-Of Original or Birth Sin](http://www.bible.ca/cr-methodist.htm) > [@](#): > > Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually. Then to show that it isn’t something new, here is one of my favorite stories concerning “original sin” [Revolutionary War times](http://www.deism.com/thinksam18.htm) > [@](#): > > Original sin, the insane idea and dogma of Christianity, did not sit well with Ethan Allen. One of his cousins, Jonathan Lee who was a Christian preacher, told him that without original sin there was no need for atonement through Jesus, and in fact no need for Christianity. The honest straight forward Allen thought about it for a few months and then wrote his preacher cousin that he agreed, there was no need for Christianity! ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/40 "2002-04-03T20:51:06Z")
Thanks for the legwork, **kniz**. Color me surprised. Guess this topic just never came up in conversations with Baptist and Methodist friends. Still, it’s obvious that not all fundamentalist churches follow this doctrine. (Mine didn’t, at least not in its usual form.) That’s why the use of the term “fundy” on this board always sort of annoys me. “Fundamentalists” are not a monolithic group, but comprise multiple Protestant denominations with a range of beliefs on any given point of doctrine. Besides which, I don’t know of anyone who self-identifies as a fundamentalist; it’s a term that generally gets applied to various Protestant churches by non-Protestants. Saying “fundies believe this” and “fundies do that” is painting with too broad a brush, IMHO. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312.md?page=3)