Is there not a better word than sin? - Article 9/39

IX. OF ORIGINAL OR BIRTH-SIN

ORIGINAL Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, "Phronema Sarkos", which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

In the story of Noah, God's decision to wipe out humankind is predicated on this assessment of behaviour, 'Every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil all the time.' 'Nothing but evil' would have sufficed but who doesn't like a bit of rhetoric?

O'Donovan stops short of original sin as a thing per se but points to '...a generalised bias towards evil.'

The Bible knows this. It doesn't sugar coat it. Even the great Old Testament King David announced his arrival on the world stage in the story of Goliath with the words 'What's in it for me?' He doesn't have any lines in the other two introductory myths.

St Paul simply reached for 'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' to make things easy to understand.

In the little booklet Journey Into Life, which has accompanied many spiritual seekers on their journey into the faith community, Norman Warren spoke of 49/100 and 1/100 both being a fail if the pass mark is 50/100.

Francis Spufford, in his lovely book Unapologetic avoided the word 'sin' and opted for THCTFTU (The Human Capacity To Fuck Things Up).

Martin Percy suggests, helpfully, that 'A culture formed mainly out of desire and achievement may find itself in the grip of a subtle temptation, namely to confuse sin with imperfection, with what we lack as people.' Maybe he was reaching for Jessica Rabbit's 'I'm not bad; I'm just drawn that way.'

And me? What am I reaching for? Well maybe it is OK to be a sinner, to share the human condition, but not to let that be the end of the story. It is not a sin to say things others don't want to hear. It is not a sin to listen and disagree. It is not a sin to dress differently, have piercings, wear a hat indoors or have a day at the races. Culture defines sin far more than we think. Some strict churches in the 1950s were so anti the dance halls that had sprung up that one wag commented 'We're not allowed to have sex standing up in case it might lead to dancing.' 

I am also, clearly, suggesting, that in order to understand the human condition you should be widely read. Or if you can't manage that, go to better movies. They don't tell you, they show you what people are like. They're not better; they're just drawn that way.