Human Propensity to "Sin"

Note, readers, that I did not say the first code, as my opponent asserts, but merely implied it as such and as the most predominant. Any devotee of history should realize that the Cuneiform Law predates many others, and, as my opponent asserts, there were other legal systems - all of which were designed to control the people's unashamed sinful activities. My opponent is pressing a case that proclaims that the human being does not sin constantly. He is quite effectively creating the proverbial "straw man." I have never claimed that human will sin constantly, as any person can see this is not the case. But rather we are naturally drawn to sin. It is the propensity of human beings to do so - that has been my contention throughout the debate. If the human has a choice without consequences between delightful sin and dull righteousness, nine times out of ten that person will select the sin. I am sure that many of you have heard the phrase, "Rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the Saints"? (by Billy Joel). From various statements I have reviewed on this topic, the majority of the people will gleefully admit that they would rather enjoy themselves while engaging in questionable activities. Of course, this depends dramatically on one's ethics, but cities like Las Vegas encourage even the strong of moral to drink to a point of intoxication, gamble life funds away and possibly corrupt themselves with other controversial behaviour. In this way, my opponent's contention regarding the inanimate dice is fallacious. By chance a die can land on any number. An inanimate object such as the die has no inner thoughts, no desires, no morals to infringe. There is no inner predilection toward enjoying oneself without considering consequences or morals. As I asserted in round 1, every one of us has caved to emotions or desire - perhaps it is as simple as abusive anger towards another (I think we can all admit times when we have become frustrated, sarcastic, bitterly angry, and said words or committed deeds to even a loved one that we later regretted) or as unlikely as serial murder. My opponent contends that modern law is not founded upon Mosaic Laws. I ask, then, how did law progress? It obviously progressed from the basis offered by the Mosaic Law and then expanded upon or discarded those that no longer applied (for example, the New Testament teaches of forgiveness, and so much punishment by death was filtered out of the law.) Many Legal codes and Constitutions of today have history of being established in accordance to the Mosaic Law. My opponent skilfully selects a few laws which have been discarded by modern law, but murder, cheating, lying under oath, prostitution, committing sex with a minor or relative, slander ("Bearing false witness against a neighbour"), desecration of Holy relics etc. are all still quite illegal. These are laws that applied to Jew or Gentile then, and apply to Jew or Gentile now. Even now Jews obey a great many of the laws prescribed by the Mosaic Law, whereas the Gentile treats them only as moral suggestions (or in terms of comestibles or dress, not at all). "Ironically, what COULD be considered hereditary are the moral values and decency that parents instill in their children - the very things that make sin rare." By "instilling" moral values and decency into a child, my opponent then refutes his own argument and states that without such training, a child will likely become prone to sinful behaviour, unless mentored by another who "instills" proper behaviour into them. By his very words, my opponent concedes that children to receive a hereditary natural sin, as they require training and discipline to discourage sinful acts. Throughout a child's life, even when the child becomes knowledgeable of "right and wrong," the child will still choose to sin - this is why parents struggle with discipline. Parents assume personal responsibility and state that "they have failed" or "if only" if a child follows the natural propensity to sin. I contend that my opponent can't prove that a felon was "likely decent" in most of their reactions. Suppose the felon was captured after a string of robberies; perhaps never before had that person been caught. It likely would have started with a small theft - an eraser or something trivial. Then the propensity to sin becomes harder to resist. 2. " Crime exists because people have needs" This is a very poor excuse to disguise the human propensity to sin in order to meet those "needs." If a human were not naturally sinful, why would we feel obligated to commit sinful acts? Needs can be met in other manners. I would also like my opponent to explain why money laundering, murder, incest, rape, kidnapping, abuse, illicit substances, trafficking etc. occurs. These are quite extravagant "needs." The wealthy businessperson "needs" more, so s/he sets of an extortion racket. 3. I concede to my opponent that discipline is required - in order to deter humans from the natural propensity to sin. As I have aforementioned, many times, laws do not deter millions of individuals, even though they are there to assist in resisting the natural sin. By observing consequences, it becomes easier to resist the natural tendency to sin. Slavery was never explicitly permitted as just throughout Biblical law (unless it became a form of bond punishment), and cruelty toward those subject to one's power wasn't tolerated by the law. A slave of the Jews was expected to work hard, but was not beaten, starved or mistreated in any manner. Many slaves became fond of their masters. Slavery was tolerated - not outlawed, but not approved, either. I request that one view the people in a nation plagued by war. Looters, child soldiers, avaricious individuals, illicit substances and illicit behaviour of numerous types are not uncommon occurrences. Without stability or the law, what consequences are there to those who follow their predilections of sin? I do not think there is any more that already has been said, so I shall conclude with the note that I personally believe that the human propensity to sin can be resisted. Individuals, especially those in civilized society with a stable Government and a decent standard of living, are capable of resisting (perhaps by adhering to religion, perhaps not). But this does not mean that individuals will never sin; due to the propensity, humans will be plagued with strife and difficult decisions throughout life. One can only hope that the person resist the urge and bear through as best one is able. Thanks for the debate! May we both do well in the voting period. Cheers