# data[].attributes.body
There can be benefits to original blessing as well. Such as the belief that original blessing would make you closer to God through lack of inherit flaw and sin. It also increases ideologies that humankind is good, switching perspectives to a more open and accepting environment. But, ultimately, whichever doctrine you believe, both can be portrayed in negative or positive lights, and are best up to individual preference.

# data[].attributes.body
It doesn't entirely lie in the word of Jesus. Actually, what we need to examine would be the benefits on Christians as a society, and original sin has many benefits to it. So, yes, original sin is a difficult doctrine to fully understand. But it shouldn't be interpreted in such a negative light. It has had some key theological benefits that have kept it as a mainstream Christian teaching. Look to Universality: Original sin teaches that all human beings are flawed and sinful, meaning that no-one is better than anyone else. Also, it is non-dualist. Original sin explains evil without having to portray God as having a bad side, or an evil partner, responsible for the badness in the world; evil comes from human rebelliousness. Additionally, we see promotion of non-designed ideology, explaining how a world that God designed to be perfect is actually full of evil. And with mechanisms, we understand that original sin demonstrates a mechanism that enabled the original disobedience to damage everyone. Overall, a promotion of Christian equality, and that's what we should focus on.

# data[].attributes.body
Their profound similarity aside, we see that humans do not receive a moral disease upon conception that leaves them inclined toward evil. In other words, all humanity suffers from original blessing rather than sin. This is because of the love God rooted within us. Overall, we need to note that if Jesus does not believe humans are born bad, Christians should not either

# data[].attributes.body
If you look further, you see that furthering on those studies by the same theologies resulted in proving that humanity also physically receives Adam’s sin at conception. We should note that, at the end of the day, both of these textual traditions assert that every human has sinned. So either way, they are profoundly similar. And with that, there's no way to know which true meaning was implied and which is correct in interpretation.

# data[].attributes.body
Well, we can attempt to understand it. A reading of the Greek translated version of the text itself could yield the notion that death became common to humanity because every person happens to sin, and to further this, we read from the first pages of the book of Genesis that one of the consequences of sin is death. Next, in the Latin translate,  it implies that death is inevitable apart from what any particular person might or might not do. Adam represents all of humanity, and in him, symbolically, we all have sinned. But not us ourselves, we are not created bad or sinful.

# data[].attributes.body
We can't know the significance of this translation, though.

# data[].attributes.body
But, if we want to base our  current understanding of Christianity through Jesus rather than the men who wrote the Bible, arguments for original sin don't really stand. Look to the basics. By being born with original sin, you are born bad. This connotation rules our perspective of people. Most of this is based off of mistakes through translation. The fourth-century theologian Augustine propagated a mistranslation of the Apostle Paul. The passage states, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” — Romans 5:12. Even though he places a lot of weight on the phrase, we unpack theological miscommunication within this. We summarizes the passage concisely to say Paul said that, after Adam, death spread to all because all have sinned. But, the Latin Vulgate version was that death spread to all through Adam, in whom all sinned.  There is distinctions like this through all original sin biblical passages.

# data[].attributes.body
Well, we see a reach more toward repentance because of the separation from God and Jesus through sin. Some Christians believe that we cannot cure ourselves of original sin, or that it somehow implies more of a separation than the alternative. On the contrary, we see that the the only way they can be saved from its consequences is by the grace of God. The only way people can receive God's grace is by accepting his love and forgiveness, believing that Jesus died for our sins, being where the original sin lies. It can come into question, on a previous point, that Jesus didn't preach towards the concept because it wasn't a doctrine during his life, and actually became true through his death.

# data[].attributes.body
Where would the correlation to redemption lie? It's often deemed best to change the doctrine in our modern world. We call original sin potentially discoloring to what it entails to the Christian faith.

# data[].attributes.body
The concept still needs to be preserved. What we understand is that saying one is conditioned under "original sin" isn't to say they are plagued with it. Rather, what it's communicating is that, though we are all sinners, we can become one with Christ through redemption. With the innate sinfulness, we are more willing to go towards repentance.

# data[].attributes.body
Actually, according to many theologists, Jesus  himself didn’t believe in the doctrine of original sin neither did the early church. The biblical passages could be taken out of context. However, if you look to Jesus and his word, he gives original sin little importance. And if Jesus didn’t believe it, maybe we shouldn’t either. You might say you believe in the doctrine of original sin because of the Bible, but the doctrine developed hundreds of years into the common era. It’s fair to say modern saints popularized the idea, and now it has become widespread in the West. While the early church talked about sin as an action or an illness, and they did see even God's people as sinners eventually, they did not support the language of this sin being inherit. We see that Augustine and others shifted language to an inborn/innate sin nature. Once that happened, all the theological focus went toward not trying to fix the problem of sin, but seeing that it was passed through birth. Because of this, faith and the concept of redemption for the cross were seen differently. Now, salvation became primarily about sin management, and human bodies became suspect, and this is only getting more progressive as in goes on.

# data[].attributes.body
Even though the idea of original sin isn't explicitly stated within the Bible, it is clearly implied. As you said yourself, it was "quilted" together by using real biblical passages. Take Psalm 51:5 which states that we all come into the world as sinners: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” This is just one of numerous verses all stating that even God's children come into this world as sinners.

# data[].attributes.body
The doctrine of “original sin” is backwards because it asserts that human nature was corrupted due to the first sin by Adam and Eve and, therefore, all humans are inherently sinful. However, this is simply a “theological construct,” which means it isn’t explicitly laid out in the Christian scriptures. Original sin, rather, derives from quilting together various passages.

# data[].attributes.body
Original blessing is the opposite of this. It's a forward wave of Christian belief stating that humans are inherently good until they are corrupted with the sins of the world. Rather than us passing down sin, we gain sinful beliefs through life experience.

# data[].attributes.body
Original sin is the concept that all human beings are born with innate sinfulness. It is a condition that was passed onto us by Adam and Eve with their original sin of eating the forbidden fruit. This concept is key in Christian faith and a fundamental aspect of Christianity.