# What is Original Sin, is it historical, and how do Christ's teachings relate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 28, 2000, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin-is-it-historical-and-how-do-christs-teachings-relate/23949 "2000-06-28T23:28:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2000, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin-is-it-historical-and-how-do-christs-teachings-relate/23949/41 "2000-07-19T03:10:10Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* 1. Poverty didn’t exist before there was property, and there was a historical time before the fall when there was no property. \*\*[/QUOTE} Look, even animals have a concept of “property”, so i would expect ever since we crossed the line unto snrient, we had “property”. And, JC was MOST definately respecting others property when he tossed the moneylenders out. They were trespassing in his Dad’s house, remember? And he did not destroy their good, just evicted them, rather violently. Note, the Celtic Church does not accept “original sin”. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2000, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin-is-it-historical-and-how-do-christs-teachings-relate/23949/42 "2000-07-19T14:48:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > Look, even animals have a concept of “property”, so i would expect ever since we crossed the line unto snrient, we had “property”. I don’t see how we, not being animals, can comprehend what animals conceptualize. Animals are territorial, but I just can’t see that as being the same thing really. But ultimately, as I mentioned previously, I’m just running into a language barrier. I think it can be said animals do not have mammon. > [@](#): > > Note, the Celtic Church does not accept “original sin”. I thought the Celtic and Roman Catholics patched things up at a Synod back in the 660’s. They haven’t gone all protestant now have they? ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2000, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin-is-it-historical-and-how-do-christs-teachings-relate/23949/43 "2000-07-19T16:54:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Hey, you’ve never lied to me before. But seriously, I’ve provided you with an experiment you can perform to find the Kingdom – go sell all that you have, give the money to the poor, leave your friends and family, allow 4 to 6 weeks for shipping and handling, seek and ye shall find. Your understandable refusal to run such an experiment yourself does not invalidate my own experimental results. I tell you that there are people who can drink arsenic and cyanide and it will not kill them. Don’t believe me? Well, I can’t show you these people, link to articles about them, offer anything besides my word, but if you sell all your possessions and look really hard you will find these people and you too will be able to drink poison without dying. Does this constitute valid and convincing evidence that people can drink cyanide and aresenic without dying? > [@](#): > > If I tell you that if you mix chemicals A and B together the solution turns purple, you can pretty much disagree with me as long as you want. I can’t make you go out, get A and B, and mix them together yourself, right? If you say mixing chemicals A and B together makes them turn purple, but you cannot cite studies or objective reasons why it would be so, cannot show yourself or anyone mixing these chemicals with such a result, and it costs all my possessions and a complete and total lifestyle change for me to even check and see if this does actually happen…do you blame me for being skeptical? Personal testimony has some slight weight, but people personally testify to seeing Elvis, aliens, perpetual motion machines, 300 mpg carburators, etc., and unless they can back their testimony up with evidence it is not terribly convincing to anyone besides a true believer. > [@](#): > > But if you want to agree to disagree as to whether the Kingdom exists, that’s fine. I think we shall have to. As I have not seen sufficent evidence that it does exist, I will lack belief in it, although it’s possible it does. > [@](#): > > So setting aside technology for a moment, what else do we have. Well over a billion people, let’s say one out of four people, living as basically slaves to the state in so much as they can not quit their jobs if they wanted to. And where did you get this statistic? > [@](#): > > Then there are the war zones and the widescale ethnic clensing in various corners of the globe. But, maybe as a percentage of people being killed verses the population the numbers are not changing drastically. My grandfather certaintly killed his fair share of Japanese back in WWII, and having been at the Battle of Pearl Harbor he probably did so with a vengeance. But for people on both sides it was an either kill or be killed\imprisoned – there wasn’t an underlying jealousy at play. So are you saying it was not one big fall with the concept of property, that back in WWII it was kill or be killed, but now it’s because of jealousy? I don’t quite follow you here. > [@](#): > > I can’t argue with the tenet that man is basically evil. I myself am basically evil – why would anyone else be any different? I’m not saying man is basically evil, or even basically good. I am saying that, from what I have seen, man is capable of both evil and good behavior. In individual humans you may be able to make a reasonably good guess as to whether they are mostly good or mostly evil, but to guess as to the inclination of the whole of humanity is a bit more of a step than I am willing to take. I simply point out that assuming people will always choose good or always choose evil is not supported by the evidence of man’s actions, and therefore using an assumption of either perfectly good or perfectly evil behavior when formulating a theory of social interaction will give you poor results. > [@](#): > > So, Abel can take Cain and lock him up somewhere. I suppose Abel would still have to feed him though – or Cain is dead one way or the other. So why wouldn’t Abel just kill Cain? It doesn’t make sense to waste food on him – this seems even more not worth his effort. Well, Abel may be hopeful that he can get Cain to respect his property rights. And the cost of Cain’s support would likely be shared by the entire community that desires that all people can respect each other’s property, yet does not wish to kill to enforce it. > [@](#): > > Right, right, You are arguing again that man is basically evil. If I were David B, I’d watch my back when you are around though! No, I am arguing that man is perfectly capable of evil. Man is also perfectly capable of good. But when you are testing the practicality of a system, you must take into account both aspects of humanity. > [@](#): > > So, it is OK to covet your neighbor’s property as long as they covet yours too. Huh. If that is your morality. What about spouse swapping, is that OK too? I mean I have no problem with that sort of thing. I mean if you need something, that is one thing, but if you want something just to have it, both Judais and xtianity teach that is wrong. How did you jump to the conclusion that people are property? I do “want things just to have it.” Why do I paint? I certainly do not need to, I just want to make a painting, and then have it once I’ve made it (I certainly don’t throw them in the trash when I am done, if they’re any good). If we only wanted what we _needed_ we would not have cars and spaceships and art and books. If someone wants my painting, and they have something I want, what is immoral about trading? I would like to see where Judaism condemns this practise; I won’t argue about Christianity since in _your_ Chistianity it is condemned, although most Christians (as most other people define the term) do not condemn this. > [@](#): > > **Me:** Why are these people comparable to slaves? They work because they choose to, because they want the money they will get by doing so. > **jmullaney:** Well, yes, you can choose not to work for money if you don’t want to. However, not everyone realizes this – and people who don’t work for money are generally frowned upon. I don’t follow you here. > [@](#): > > No. But you said these businesses cause people not to starve somehow. (“Owners of big businesses want their own profits, yes, but they also provide jobs, and therefore food”) Are they supposed to eat the cars? The businesses produce cars. The people who help to produce them are given money, which they can use to buy food. > [@](#): > > No, he threw some seeds in the ground maybe, and the seed and fertile soil produced the grain. Agriculture is generally a bit more complex than “throwing some seeds on the ground”. Perhaps the rich man worked hard to irrigate and fertilize poor land. Your argument rests on too many “ifs” for me to accept it, personally, although it’s no skin off my nose if you do. IF the punishment for original sin (toiling for unfair rewards, death) is due to property and “turning from God” and IF long ago we were all happier, one with God, and generally better off than today and IF 10000 years ago man turned from God and IF man has never found his way back in the meantime and IF your interpretation of Jesus’ words is correct and IF Jesus Himself was correct about the way back to God and IF the concept of “property” does more harm than good and IF the lack-of-property community is viable and IF it can therefore resist and convert the less “enlightened” and IF this leads to all mankind turning back to God and lack of toiling for unfair rewards and IF we do not lose the technological advances that seem spurred by the concept of “property” (well, that’s mostly me not wanting to see advanced medicine, etc., go by the wayside; it does not refute the “cure” of “original sin”, just makes us lose out on some rather nice things)…sure, I can see how you can argue that that will fix “original sin”–at least your interpretation of it. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2000, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin-is-it-historical-and-how-do-christs-teachings-relate/23949/44 "2000-07-19T23:02:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > … if you sell all your possessions and look really hard you will find these people and you too will be able to drink poison without dying. Does this constitute valid and convincing evidence that people can drink cyanide and aresenic without dying? Science is never about evidence because evidence can always be manufactured. I can take a digital picture of the sky, use photoshop to turn the color of the sky to green, and email you the bitmap. Does this constitute valid and convincing evidence that the sky is green? Only if you are not willing to run the _experiment_ (looking up) and getting _results_ for yourself (the sky is generally blue). And so I could probably convince you that the sky is green, and I’d be doing you a real disservice. > [@](#): > > … do you blame me for being skeptical? Personal testimony has some slight weight, but … unless they can back their testimony up with evidence it is not terribly convincing to anyone besides a true believer. No, I don’t blame you for being skeptical. I heard the story (PBS?) that there were these scientists doing all these acheological digs to find ancient copies of the Gospels, presumably to discover if what was written now was what was written in the first place. They eventually did find a small fragment that was (still is?) the oldest found to date, which ironically contained just one sentence, as uttered by Pontius Pilate, “What is Truth?” Pilate (who is one of my favorite characters in the story) and Jesus had the exact debate about the Kingdom as we’re having (er, forshortened anyway) and Pilate basically came to your conclusion: > [@](#): > > As I have not seen sufficent evidence that it does exist, I will lack belief in it, although it’s possible it does. Hence Pilate, even though he condemned Jesus to death, wrote above the cross “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” So at least he had an open mind. Anyway, the point I was trying to make statistically was a lot of people in the world live in communist, socialist, or fascist countries where you can’t exactly go on strike, and hence they are very much more slaves than people in capitalist countries. So i guess if I had to rate the US on a scale of one to ten, one being, well, heck, 1st century Judea, two being 12th century France, three being Nazi Germany – I’d give us a six or even seven. This is a good place and time to be alive. And the other point I was trying to make, is that while _perhaps_ there have always been evil, murderous people is now these people have increased control to make people who don’t really care either way to carry out their tasks. I suspect. Maybe. It is a tough point to make. > [@](#): > > … using an assumption of either perfectly good or perfectly evil behavior when formulating a theory of social interaction will give you poor results. I think you are correct. People are basically lukewarm. > [@](#): > > … when you are testing the practicality of a system, you must take into account both aspects of humanity. There is none good but God, as the saying goes. But, somehow, I think the evil people are – well, you can see old churches in Europe with stained glass images of a dog chasing it’s own tail, representing the devil. _There’s nothing evil people can do to Christians to make them suffer._ The lukewarm people are the ones who get the short end of the stick under most systems I am familiar with. > [@](#): > > Well, Abel may be hopeful that he can get Cain to respect his property rights. And the cost of Cain’s support would likely be shared by the entire community that desires that all people can respect each other’s property, yet does not wish to kill to enforce it. What community? Look, this is a morality play here – two characters. A fable. The fox could just get his friend the elephant to reach up and get him the grapes but then you are missing the point. Abel says he owns it. Cain says he doesn’t. Who is to say who is right? Might makes right. Work in Abel’s field, take little round stones in payment, turn them in for bread, or Abel’s going to have to kill you, one way or the other. Of course, if you have eternal life through Christ, that shouldn’t be a big deal. > [@](#): > > How did you jump to the conclusion that people are property? Oh never mind. I am wrong on that whole coveting thing anyway. I was trying to make an analogy to another ten commandments which are supposed to be the bedrock of western civ (yeah right). But I’m conceding you are making a good point here: > [@](#): > > If someone wants my painting, and they have something I want, what is immoral about trading? What is immoral (in xtianity) about it is insisting for something back for what you have given. If you want something, ask for it. Offer to trade, by all means. But if someone wants something from you, you should give expecting nothing back. > [@](#): > > I would like to see where Judaism condemns this practise; Well, just in the Ten Commandments. I don’t know. Jesus basically gave something superior to them anyway. See how silly just this one commandment is once you think about it for a while? > [@](#): > > I won’t argue about Christianity since in _your_ Chistianity it is condemned, although most Christians (as most other people define the term) do not condemn this. It is not my Christianity. I mean, if you want to use the text of the gospels as a guide to what Christ taught, and I don’t know where in God’s name else you are going to get this information, I think what is written there is plain as day. It is not my fault that people go around claiming to be Christians without ever having read a bible apparently. Like I said in the other thread: if I want to get 200 million of my closest friends to wear funny hats all day, and when asked why they do so to say it is because they are devout Muslims until everyone (except real Muslims and a few in the know) believes that Islam is about little more than wearing funny hats, that still does not negate the fact that _Mohammed didn’t teach his followers to wear funny hats_. (Well, actually, I don’t know that for sure.) Truth isn’t democratic. Repeating the same lie over and over again doesn’t make it true. I’m trying to fight ignorance here, and I presume I am in the right place. You can choose not to work for money if you don’t want to. This is important. Because if you insist everyone must work for money to survive, you cede power to those who control the money. Then, you are at their mercy. I don’t want to argue _ad hitlerem_ but, just as one example, there’s the story of the concentration camp guard who told one of the prisoners he was very sorry he had to do this, but he hadn’t worked in years and he had a family to take care of. And he wasn’t killing anyone – he was just holding people there to be killed. And somewhere there was a farmer who was growing food to feed the guard too. Was he a bad person? That same situation is repeating itself in various corners of the globe to this day. I know here today in America we are of course very optimistic that our capitalist economy will remain stable forever and that our republic will remain strong and just. And that somehow, we’ll be able to spread this system into other parts of the world. Meanwhile, my tax dollars go to pay to kill fetuses and prisoners, who might be innocent, and build and maintain nuclear stockpiles capable of wiping out the human race, and secret wars, and not so secret ones. Not that I care much. And people who are upset about these things go online and whine a bunch and I guess that’s fine if it makes them feel better. Doesn’t change anything. I’m making good money off communist slave labor ultimately myself and good for me. If they are too cowardly to do anything for themselves, why should I care? > [@](#): > > The people who (work) are given money, which they can use to buy food. There you go; now you are getting the picture. But you said somehow that if these people did not work making cars or whatever that they would all starve. Do you think if I quit my job tomorrow, Farmer Johnson is going to go out into his field and torch whatever crops and slaughter whatever animals he has that are meant to feed me had I kept working. Of course not. The food is going to be there whether I work or not. > [@](#): > > Your argument rests on too many “ifs” for me to accept it, personally, although it’s no skin off my nose if you do. I understand. > [@](#): > > IF we do not lose the technological advances that seem spurred by the concept of “property” (well, that’s mostly me not wanting to see advanced medicine, etc., go by the wayside; it does not refute the “cure” of “original sin”, just makes us lose out on some rather nice things) This would be my only point of contention – if property spurred technology somehow we should have had MRI machines 9000 years ago or more. Total red herring to try and draw some sort of correlation here. I would think that in a free society, the “economy” would work more efficiently than one in which people are essentially slaves – but that is only my opinion. > [@](#): > > …sure, I can see how you can argue that that will fix “original sin”–at least your interpretation of it. I know it is a lot of ifs. Love is always a gamble, they say. Somehow I think maybe humanity will make it anyway, but that’s probably my pride more than anything and pride is the most deadly sin. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2000, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin-is-it-historical-and-how-do-christs-teachings-relate/23949/45 "2000-07-20T00:44:48Z")
jmullaney wrote: > [@](#): > > I heard the story (PBS?) that there were these scientists doing all these acheological digs to find ancient copies of the Gospels, presumably to discover if what was written now was what was written in the first place. They eventually did find a small fragment that was (still is?) the oldest found to date, which ironically contained just one sentence, as uttered by Pontius Pilate, “What is Truth?” This has “urban legend” written all over it. Gotta cite? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2000, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin-is-it-historical-and-how-do-christs-teachings-relate/23949/46 "2000-07-20T05:04:00Z")
here is a point for which I can provide a genuine fact: > [@](#): > > They eventually did find a small fragment that was (still is?) the oldest found to date, which ironically contained just one sentence, as uttered by Pontius Pilate, “What is Truth?” The oldest fragment is, according to Kümmel’s \*\*Introduction to the New Testament, > [@](#): > > B52 \* [B s/b Gothic, 52 s/b superscript] \* is the oldest preserved fragment of the NT (early second century). A fragment the size of the palm of the hand, it contains in fragmentary form Jn 18:31-33, 37 f in agreement with the Nestle text. (The Nestle text is the standard recension of the NT that reconciles all the disputed passages, providing the identification of any document that disagrees with the standard work. By saying B52 agrees with Nestle, it means that all the words that are on the fragment appear in the majority of accepted texts in the same order.) Rendered in English (using the KJV), would give us: > [@](#): > > 31 > Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: > 32 > That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. > 33 > Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Then: > [@](#): > > 37 > Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. > 38 > Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. My reference does not indicate how much of the text is quoted beginning at verse 37. It is possible that the verse ends part way into verse 38, leaving “What is truth?” as the last phrase on the text. :::shrug::: If that is true, it is _not_ true that the fragment bears _only_ the words “What is truth?” Regardless, unless one is to posit a freaky God who leaves strange clues around like a Victorian British Eccentric, the best that can be said of the text on the fragment is that it is coincidental to any weird theories that have arisen since it was written. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2000, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin-is-it-historical-and-how-do-christs-teachings-relate/23949/47 "2000-07-20T18:54:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > If that is true, it is _not_ true that the fragment bears _only_ the words “What is truth?” Thanks **tomndebb**! I really did hear them say this on one of those PBS/Discovery channel documentaries – I thought it was a little hokey sounding. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin-is-it-historical-and-how-do-christs-teachings-relate/23949.md?page=2)