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”)
|