From Misstep to Damnation

The Fraud of Original Sin and the Case for Original Goodness

By the druid mystic, Finn

 

1. Introduction

The doctrine of Original Sin has long been regarded as Christianity’s dark genius: a single stroke that made guilt universal, baptism indispensable, and salvation a matter of cultic mediation. Yet a philological and conceptual analysis exposes it as a historical fraud. The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words that underlie our translations of “sin” — ḥēt, hamartía, and peccātum — did not originally mean “innate moral guilt.” They meant, more simply, “to miss the mark,” “to fail,” “to stumble.” The theological edifice constructed by Paul, amplified by Augustine, and enforced by the Church was thus built not upon the rock of revelation, but upon the quicksand of mistranslation and opportunistic reinterpretation.

This essay will proceed in three movements: first, by examining the linguistic history of “sin”; second, by contrasting Jesus’ reported words with Paul’s universalising reinterpretation and Augustine’s codification; and third, by setting against Original Sin the modern druid Finn’s doctrine of Original Goodness, which offers a radically different anthropology: one that liberates rather than enslaves.

 

2. The Philology of “Sin”

·         Hebrew ḥēt (חֵטְא): literally “to miss, to fail, to go astray.” In Genesis 4:7, Cain is warned that “failure is crouching at the door” — not that a metaphysical Sin is inherited from Adam.

·         Greek hamartía (ἁμαρτία): likewise “to miss the mark” (from archery). A hamartōlos is a “stumbler,” one who errs. Jesus uses this term in the Synoptic Gospels: “I came not to call the upright but those who stumble.”

·         Latin peccātum: originally “a misstep” (from pes, foot). Cicero uses peccare of intellectual blunders. It was Jerome’s Vulgate that fixed peccatum as the word for hamartía, and Augustine who inflated it into an ontological category of inherited guilt.

Thus, the primary terms meant “error, failure, misstep” — not congenital corruption. The translation into “sin” as an inborn, damning stain is a late Christian invention.

 

3. Jesus versus Paul versus Augustine

Jesus’ words, as recorded in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, distinguish clearly between the “righteous” and the “failing.” He does not obliterate that distinction, but affirms it: the healthy do not need a physician; the sick do. This presumes that there are indeed “healthy” and “upright” people who do not require rescue. His mission is directed toward those who stumble, not those who stand.

Paul, however, abolishes this distinction. In Romans 3:23 and 5:12, he declares that “all have sinned.” The Greek phrase in Romans 5:12 — ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον — means “because all have sinned.” But the Latin mistranslation, in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom all sinned”), allowed Augustine to claim that all humanity was literally present in Adam, and thus all inherit his guilt. Augustine sharpened this into the most radical consequence: even newborn infants are damned unless baptized.

The result is the inversion of Jesus’ own teaching. Where Jesus saw a spectrum — some upright, some stumbling — Paul and Augustine saw a universal damnation. Where Jesus saw innocence in children, Augustine saw damnation “in the mildest form.” Where Jesus proclaimed liberation, Augustine imposed bondage.

 

4. Original Sin as Cultic Insurance Fraud

Viewed sociologically, the doctrine of Original Sin functions as an insurance scam:

1.     Invent a universal threat: all humanity is guilty of Adam’s crime.

2.     Monopolise the cure: only the Church’s sacraments can remove this guilt.

3.     Enforce compliance: refusal means eternal torment.

4.     Extract obedience and wealth: the faithful, terrified, pay with submission, labour, and blood.

This was not theology in the service of truth but political technology in the service of control. The universal guilt that Paul and Augustine proclaimed gave bishops, popes, and rulers the perfect lever: every soul, from the cradle, was hostage to their mediation.

 

5. The Case for Original Goodness

Against this, both Pelagius in late antiquity and the modern druid Finn in our time affirm what we may call Original Goodness. Their claim is not sentimental but naturalistic:

·         To be born at all is to have survived the lottery of existence.

·         Every infant, every animal, is proof of viability, a winner in nature’s struggle.

·         Birth = goodness, success, fitness.

·         Failure comes later, through choices, maladaptation, or cultural corruption.

Original Goodness cannot be weaponised by cults, because it does not generate universal guilt. It generates dignity and freedom. Hence Pelagius was anathematised, and Finn is ignored. Original Sin became the political engine of empire; Original Goodness, politically useless, was discarded.

 

6. Conclusion: From Fraud to Liberation

The philology is decisive: the words that became “sin” meant “failure” or “misstep,” not congenital moral guilt. The theology is decisive: Jesus distinguished between the upright and the failing, he did not damn all. The politics is decisive: Paul and Augustine’s construction of Original Sin created a perfect apparatus of social control, amounting to a spiritual racket that extracted obedience under threat of eternal torture.

Against this stands Original Goodness: the recognition that life itself is the first victory, that every birth is proof of viability, that guilt is not inherited but only incurred. This doctrine cannot found empires, but it can liberate souls.

The fraud was Original Sin. The truth, forgotten and suppressed, is Original Goodness.

 

 

Parallel Table: Jesus’ Saying (“I came to call not the righteous but sinners”)

Term

Original Word

Root Meaning

Traditional Translation

Better Rendering (Modern / Finn’s lens)

“Righteous”

Greek: δίκαιος (dikaios)

“Just, upright, in order, aligned with what is right / straight” (root dike: order, justice)

“Righteous”

“Upright,” “aligned,” “those who succeed,” “those walking straight”

“Sinners”

Greek: ἁμαρτωλός (hamartōlos) < hamartía

“One who misses the mark, stumbles, errs, fails” (archery term: to miss the target)

“Sinner”

“One who fails,” “the stumbler,” “the struggler,” “the one who went astray”

Underlying Contrast

δίκαιοι vs. ἁμαρτωλοί

“Those who walk straight vs. those who miss the path”

“Righteous vs. Sinners”

“The successful vs. the failing” / “Those aligned vs. those astray”

 

Jesus’ Saying (Mark 2:17)

 

οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.

Literally: “I did not come to call the upright, but those who fail.”

“I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

“I came to call not the successful, but those who stumble.” / “I came to help those who fail, not those who succeed.”

 

‘Christ’, as linguistic fraud

Original sin as fraud

Home