# 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:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/41 "2002-04-03T21:13:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > Saying “fundies believe this” and “fundies do that” is painting with too broad a brush, IMHO. Well, those Protestant Christians who hold that the Bible (the 66 books that they recognize as canonical, that is) is without error, do share a number of consequent beliefs and traits across denominational lines. Having a term that groups these people together is conversationally useful, otherwise we need to repeat longwinded phrases such as my first phrase above, when one word will do. Fundamentalists, IMHO, are much more cohesive in their beliefs (at least those that impact the rest of us) than liberals are in their politics, yet people - including reasonably respected posters on this board - feel free to make sweeping generalizations about liberals. Such is life. ---
**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, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/42 "2002-04-03T21:52:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\*Saying “fundies believe this” and “fundies do that” is painting with too broad a brush, IMHO. \*\* I was on a _Wiccan_ site long ago and they had a section titled how to deal with **fundies** (truth is it was the first time I’d ever seen that term). In reading what they had to say: they felt that anyone that adhered to their own beliefs and insisted on others doing the same\*, were **fundies**. They used the term **Atheist fundies** , which opened a whole new world of thinking for me. \*Exclusivity in other words. ---
**Author:** ![Dieter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@Dieter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dieter)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/43 "2002-04-04T07:20:06Z")
How Eddie Izzard defines Original Sin Follower 1: Forgive me father for I have sinned. I had an impure thought. Priest: Heard it! NEXT! Follower 2: Forgive me father for I have sinned. I poked a bager with a spoon. Priest: Ohhhh! I haven’t heard that one before. Ok. Fine. Say three Hail Marys and 4 Hello Dollys. NEXT! ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/44 "2002-04-04T14:46:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > **Well, those Protestant Christians who hold that the Bible (the 66 books that they recognize as canonical, that is) is without error, do share a number of consequent beliefs and traits across denominational lines.** But that’s just it. They are not as monolithic in their beliefs as non-Protestants seem to think (as demonstrated by this thread). Any five people can look at a passage of the Bible and come up with five different interpretations of what that passage means, all the while believing that the passage represents the “infallible” word of God. Interpretational disputes are the reason we have so many Protestant denominations. > [@](#): > > **Having a term that groups these people together is conversationally useful…** Granted. Try “Protestants.” Or if you need to be more specific, “fundamentalists.” No one would call themselves that, but at least it is reasonably respectful. I’m just saying that “fundy” is an unnecessarily insulting term. Similar to referring to Catholics as “Papists.” > [@](#): > > [P]eople - including reasonably respected posters on this board - feel free to make sweeping generalizations about liberals. Such is life.\*\* Don’t I know it. And it’s annoying, isn’t it? You lose respect for a poster who makes such sweeping generalizations about “liberals,” don’t you? Same thing. But hey, I don’t really have a dog in this fight. As I said, I’m an atheist. (And a liberal, for that matter.) I’m just suggesting a more respectful approach toward Protestants. It’s just good manners. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/45 "2002-04-04T16:35:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\*Granted. Try “Protestants.” Or if you need to be more specific, “fundamentalists.” No one would call themselves that, but at least it is reasonably respectful. > > I’m just saying that “fundy” is an unnecessarily insulting term. Similar to referring to Catholics as “Papists.” > > But hey, I don’t really have a dog in this fight. As I said, I’m an atheist. (And a liberal, for that matter.) I’m just suggesting a more respectful approach toward Protestants. It’s just good manners. \*\* You either did not read my above post or decided to ignore it. Here is a [**quote**](http://members.bellatlantic.net/~clotho/wards.htm) > [@](#): > > Also, please note that by the term “Fundy” I do not refer to anyone particular group. A “Fundy” is any creep who insists you believe as they do or “suffer the consequences”. These folks can be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, **Atheist** , or even fellow Pagans who think the God/dess talks only to THEM and not you. They practice religious intimidation and even black magick (though they won’t admit it) to get their way. Stand firm! You seem to think that a “fundie” is a Protestant and likewise that all Protestants are “fundies”. This attitude to me qualifies as one that would be held by a “fundie” of another faith, including an **Atheist fundie**. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/46 "2002-04-04T17:38:52Z")
**kniz** - I wasn’t ignoring your post. My last post was in response to the post of **RTFirefly**. I was not responding to your remarks. I will do that now. It appears that you are not using the most commonly accepted definition of “fundamentalism.” Here it is (from Webster’s dictionary): > [@](#): > > _n._ A Protestant religious movement that emphasizes a belief in the literal truth of the Bible. A “fundamentalist,” then, would be a member of one of the Protestant churches which follow a fundamentalist doctrine. And “fundy,” as used by most people, is a diminutive (and insulting) way to refer to such a fundamentalist. No offense, but if you are going to use some definition of “fundy” other than the common one, then you shouldn’t be surprised if it creates confusion. **kniz** wrote: > [@](#): > > You seem to think that a “fundie” is a Protestant and likewise that all Protestants are “fundies”. On the contrary, my post implicitly acknowledges that “fundamentalists” are a sub-set of Protestant churches. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/47 "2002-04-05T03:52:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Interpretational disputes are the reason we have so many Protestant denominations. > [@](#): > > Try “Protestants.” Or if you need to be more specific, “fundamentalists.” No one would call themselves that, but at least it is reasonably respectful.\*\* > [@](#): > > I’m just suggesting a more respectful approach toward Protestants. Whatever hint that fundamentalists may not represent all Protestants, which may exist in the second quote was more than nullified by the last quote. I realize that you and many others don’t think it is important, but what if I told you that I thought all [**atheists**](http://www.nzarh.org.nz/atheist/articles/athclass.htm) had the same beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/48 "2002-04-05T15:09:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kniz \* > \*\*I realize that you and many others don’t think it is important, but what if I told you that I thought all **atheists** had the same beliefs? \*\* Eh. No skin off my nose. But I do find the above quote sort of ironic coming from someone who seems to think that all **fundamentalists** believe exactly the same things. **kniz** , you seem determined to be offended by my observations, so at this point, I’m just gonna let you **be** offended. Enjoy! ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2002, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/49 "2002-04-06T07:58:30Z")
How would I think that [ul][_] Muslim fundamentalists [_]Christian fundamentalists [_] Jewish fundamentalists [_] Atheist fundamentalists [_] Pagan fundamentalists [_] Other fundamentalists[/ul] all have the same beliefs? You are the one that says they have to be **Protestant**. ---
**Author:** ![Super\_Gnat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Super\_Gnat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Super_Gnat)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2002, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/50 "2002-04-06T09:17:47Z")
Goin’ back a ways… > [@](#): > > 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? > > ``` The way it has been explained to me (from a church that most of you would see as Protestant fundamentalist on these sort of issues) is that God created us to be people who had a choice of whether or not to love him/worship him/whatever. Free will is null without the presence of a choice. If there had been no way for Adam and Eve to disobey, then they wouldn’t have had free will. The act of disobedience, perhaps more than the fruit itself (or whatever, I obviously don’t know)) opened their eyes to all of the possiblities of living outside of God’s will for their lives. They knew good and evil; they could begin to comprehend the immensity of what they had done and perhaps see the ramifications of separation from God. Now, this does not mean they had no responsibility for their previous choice; God had told them “Look, I have all this stuff for you. It’s the perfect life. Do whatever you want, just leave the fruit of that one tree over there (out of thousands, maybe) alone.” And the scripture doesn’t say “they were like gods, knowing good from evil”. They were able to see the difference, but that didn’t make them “like gods”. In fact, it did the opposite; it introduced them to death. And with evil in themselves, it was inevitable that it would be passed to their children. ---
**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 6, 2002, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/51 "2002-04-06T14:38:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kniz \* > \*\*You seem to think that a “fundie” is a Protestant and likewise that all Protestants are “fundies”. This attitude to me qualifies as one that would be held by a “fundie” of another faith, including an **Atheist fundie**. \*\* I guess my attitude is that Fundimentalism is a specific movement within American Christianity. “Fundie” is a sort of derogatory nickname for that. If you want a word that means “intolerant”, which is how you seem to be using “fundie”, why don’t you just use “intolerant”? It seems like linking fundimentalism with intolerance is kind of unfair to fundimentalists. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2002, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/52 "2002-04-06T17:30:32Z")
In one usage, “fundamentalism” is a term, usually derogatory in connotation, for anyone committed to a given religion to a point beyond what those not so committed would consider reasonable. Accordingly, there are fundamentalist Hindus, fundamentalist Moslems, and fundamentalist Jews. The exact significance of how one is “fundamentalist” differs from religion to religion. Karen Armstrong’s _The Battle for God_ does a wonderful job of spelling out the varying fundamentalisms of the three Western faiths. In another sense, it means what it was originally defined to mean, a Christian (of Protestant persuasion) who adheres to the five “fundamentals of the Christian faith” (which I’ll let the Google-iferous **Duck Duck Goose** post, since I know she has them at far readier reference than I do). Since one of the major tenets of the latter sense is the literal truth of the Biblical narrative, such things as “creation science” and belief in a universal Flood are common concomitants of fundamentalism. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2002, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/53 "2002-04-07T05:00:43Z")
In other words there would be no life as we know it. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2002, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312/54 "2002-04-07T05:03:41Z")
Sorry I didn’t see second page and so this is out of sync. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-exactly-is-original-sin/100312.md?page=2)