Christianity is in fact really Paulinity in using that which became known as “Original Sin”, initially created out of nothing by Paul aka Saul.

The Saul who suffers some accident/incident while on the road to Damascus when he was on a mission to persecute the Jewish followers of Jesus. He comes to, initially with the loss of sight and what is probably a bad case of concussion, possibly brain damage. 

Becomes Paul and then decides to take over, hijacks it could be said, that very movement the followers of Jesus that he had been persecuting. He then rebadges it as “Christian”.

Paul then places himself as the the leader, chief theoretician and pamphleteer, replacing Peter, who, so the story goes, was picked by Jesus to take over when the Jesus “left” 

The followers of Jesus are then admonished, browbeaten, harassed and threatened with damnation being told that they all bear the stain of sin.

This has them subscribing to what in fact becomes “Paulinity”. A rather nasty and misogynistic update of the OT wrapped in the guise of the words and deeds of the NT Jesus
. 
Paul should really have not said anything about the erstwhile Jesus, for he had never seen him let alone met him.

Such as devised by Paul was continually used to beat those early followers of the erstwhile Jesus about the head and soul. But there was no evidence of this until Paul came along.

Where did that erstwhile Jesus talk of such sin?

Where in the OT is there any mention of sin as Judaism does not see human nature as irrevocably tainted by some sort of “Original Sin”?

That early “Christian” Church took to it seriously as a way of controlling the flock. Then along came baptism, of course in the purview of the Early Church to rid the “faithful” of such sin.

It was taken seriously by Iraneus following on from Paul, so then understandable why later on Pelagianism did so well. For if one can be at all rational about any religion why should it be accepted that a “sin” supposedly committed at the very beginning of “creation” can effect a new born child by placing them at birth in the general condition of sinfulness.

Of course this was opposed, for it was cutting into the Early Church franchise in the Holy Roman Empire. Augustine, the “saint” who wrote “Lord grant me chastity, but not yet” came out to argue against Pelagianism. Which when worked up into doctrine came up with the now well known term “Original SIn”

Augustine was definitely down on sexuality. Like all those Southern evangelists, who having wallowed in sin and fornication decide that no one else should.

Obviously if Augustine had had enough that was it for everyone else. He railed against concupiscence. So much so that the early Church may have ended up like the Shakers. 

But the Church needed all the “faithful” to reproduce to keep the franchise going, so much of what was in Augustine’s arguments was swept under the carpet.

However those later Protestant sects of various sorts took to Original Sin in a big way, following the Augustine line concerning concupiscence and all things sexual in ramping up the guilt trip.

Luther asserted that humans had also inherited the so called “Adamic Guilt” and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. 

But somehow interestingly enough he subscribed to that strange doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary!

Then along comes Calvin, who believed that humans inherit that “Adamic Guilt” and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. 
Calvin took it even further as the basis for the his doctrine of “Total Depravity”.

Such he claimed resulting in a complete alienation from the God of Calvin and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with the God of Calvin based on their own abilities.

For according to Calvin not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to that “Fall of Adam” but since he, Adam was the first representative of the human race, all whom he represented now inherit the guilt of his sin.

What is that about “a sucker born every minute…

Or in the case of the US, give unto Trump what he says is his. In return for a bible, or some crap sneakers.

Yeah, it’s actually rather surprising how obvious it is that virtually any Christian denomination is more or less diametrically opposed to Christ himself.

Well, there’s good weird and bad weird.

Chance of any Republicans scraping into the good weird category vanishingly small; also a fairly small chance of most of them escaping the bad weird bucket.

Even if it was after a painting, there is no reason to believe that the original Last Supper (if it actually happened) would have had everyone seated in a row along one side of a table.

I’ve seen that said in some other pieces, and I think it is alluded to here?

Just wondering how the “Keep Austin Weird” movement in Texas will go with that.