“The doctrine of original sin is as absurd as it is cruel. It puts man in a position he never chose and holds him accountable for a crime he never committed.” Thomas Paine
Statement on the Doctrine of Original Sin
The Doctrine of Original Sin is a deeply manipulative concept that has no grounding in reason, ethics, or the historical foundations of just societies. By asserting that every human being is born inherently guilty due to the actions of distant ancestors, it promotes a worldview of inherited shame and unworthiness. This doctrine serves to control rather than to enlighten, fostering fear and dependence on religious authority rather than personal moral responsibility. No ethical society—ancient or modern—has based its justice system on the presumption of guilt at birth. True ethical frameworks begin with the dignity and freedom of the individual, not with imposed spiritual condemnation.
Is there any country in the world wherein the Doctrine of Original Sin is incorporated in their legal system?
Legal systems across the globe—whether based on common law, civil law, customary law, or religious law—operate on the principle that individuals are accountable for their own actions, not for the alleged sins or moral failings of their ancestors.
Even in countries with a strong religious influence, laws are not written to punish people for a theological concept like “inherited sin.” While some theocratic states may enforce religious moral codes, Original Sin as a legal principle—where a newborn is considered legally guilty or condemned—has no place in formal jurisprudence.
This confirms that the Doctrine of Original Sin is purely theological, not ethical nor legal, and its use has been largely to manipulate spiritual perception and behavior, not to advance justice or human dignity.
The Doctrine of Original Sin: Absent from Ethical Law
Despite its deep entrenchment in certain theological traditions, the Doctrine of Original Sin has no place in the legal systems of any country in the world. No nation—past or present—has ever formally incorporated the idea that individuals are born guilty due to the transgressions of their distant ancestors.
Legal and ethical systems, whether shaped by democracy, tradition, or religious influence, are grounded in the principle of individual responsibility. People are held accountable for their own actions, not for inherited guilt. Even in theocracies, where religious laws may influence governance, there is no legal code that punishes infants or individuals simply for being born into the human race.
This glaring absence highlights a crucial truth: the Doctrine of Original Sin is not an ethical concept—it is a tool of spiritual control. It fosters dependence, shame, and obedience rather than encouraging personal growth, moral integrity, or rational self-examination.
A Historical Example
In ancient Athenian democracy, one of the cradles of Western ethical thought, a central legal principle was that “no man is to suffer punishment for the crime of another.” The Greeks, who emphasized reason and personal virtue, found it absurd to condemn someone for a misdeed they did not commit—much less for something committed before their birth. Their legal system, like many others that followed, upheld the idea of moral agency, not inherited guilt.
As Thomas Paine, a Deist and a voice of Enlightenment reason, once wrote: “The doctrine of original sin is as absurd as it is cruel. It puts man in a position he never chose and holds him accountable for a crime he never committed.”
Paine’s words expose the psychological and spiritual damage such a doctrine can inflict—especially when used to justify control over minds and hearts.
In contrast, truly ethical societies begin with the assumption that each person is born with inherent dignity and potential, not with inherited condemnation. Justice, when genuine, does not begin with guilt, but with freedom.
Who was really responsible for creating the Doctrine of Original Sin, Jesus or Paul?
The Doctrine of Original Sin, as it is commonly understood in Christian theology, is primarily the result of Paul’s writings, rather than the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus and Sin
Jesus did speak about sin, repentance, and forgiveness, but he did not articulate a doctrine resembling Original Sin. His teachings focused on individual moral responsibility and divine mercy. For example:
- He taught people to repent and seek forgiveness (Luke 5:32).
- He emphasized that children and the innocent belong to the Kingdom of God (Matthew 19:14), which contradicts the idea that all humans inherit sin.
- He never mentioned Adam’s sin as something directly affecting all of humanity in a way that dooms them from birth.
Paul and Original Sin
The idea that Adam’s sin corrupted all of humanity is mainly derived from Paul’s letters, particularly Romans 5:12-21: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…”
Paul connects Adam’s transgression with universal human sinfulness and contrasts it with Jesus’ role as the new Adam who brings salvation. While Paul does not explicitly use the term Original Sin, his writings laid the foundation for later Christian theologians, like Augustine of Hippo, to develop the doctrine.
Augustine’s Role
Although Paul planted the seeds, Augustine (4th-5th century) formalized the Doctrine of Original Sin. He argued that all humans inherit guilt from Adam’s sin and require baptism to remove it. His ideas influenced Catholic and Protestant traditions, though Eastern Orthodox Christianity does not fully accept his interpretation.
Conclusion:
Jesus did not teach Original Sin—Paul introduced the concept of inherited sinfulness, and Augustine later developed it into formal doctrine. Afterwards, the Catholic Church use the doctrine as their most powerful tool to ensnare and manipulate their people. Perhaps finding the doctrine convenient, the Protestant Church also adopted it and further developed it into their palatable “born again” doctrine.