by David Virtue, VOL
Referring to Original Sin as "one of the biggest elephants in the room in Christian and especially Protestant theology," the Rev. Canon Stephen Neill describes the doctrine as a "distortion of the divine human relationship and, indeed, the relationship between humanity and the rest of Creation." He described people who believe in it as being "defensive" and "elevating it to the level of Scripture rather than interpretation."
Citing Stephen Burke's A Heretic's Guide to Eternity, Neill said that the implications of this doctrine for unbaptized children was "fascinating" and blamed people for trying to keep their religious systems intact…even when the sacred texts are silent.
On the subject of God's handiwork in creation which God called "good", Neill asked, "Is God's Creation so terribly marred by the sin of Adam and Eve that what was fundamentally good only a couple of chapters earlier has become fundamentally flawed?"
Neill rips God saying, "Is our God really so petty and unjust that he would tell Adam and Eve that what was fundamentally good only a couple of chapters earlier has become fundamentally flawed? Is our God really so petty and unjust that he would tell Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil and then leave it in temptation's reach just so that he could punish them when they inevitably transgressed, having not previously had the knowledge of good and evil?"
Neill went on to write, "I find I cannot reconcile that with the understanding of a God who went to the cross for us in and through his Son and I actually don't think that a reasonable and orthodox understanding of Jesus' death and resurrection depends on a model of Original Sin which portrays a God who punishes his creatures for falling short of perfection.