-=> Quoting Darryl Gonzalez to All <=-

DG> All too frequently, on this echo and in many other
DG> places, I see "Original Sin" referred to as sex.
DG> This is not correct. I know thaat that was the teaching
DG> of many church leaders of various churches for centuries,
DG> but it is simply not correct.

"Original sin" was an invention of Augustine, ca. CE 450. It has no basis in biblical texts, canonical or apocryphal.

DG> In Genesis 3, we have the commission of the original
DG> sin: Adam and Eve's eating of the fruit of the tree
DG> of knowledge of good and evil. And it was not because
DG> of any special property of the fruit of the tree that
DG> Adam and Eve were punished---it was because Adam and
DG> Eve disobeyed God. God said, "Don't eat this", and
DG> they ate it. Which of you would not punish your own
DG> children for eating something you told them not to?

The woman didn't exist when {JHWH} told the man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [most likely a date palm]. Re-read Gen.2:16-18. Was she bound to follow an order that wasn't given to her?

When the serpent told the woman to eat of the tree, the only creatures she had ever seen in her life were creations of {JHWH}: the man, animals, and presumably angels. As far as she knew, the serpent, which was just another creation of {JHWH}, was relaying a message from {JHWH}. Was she responsible for being misled by what seemed to be a divine messenger?

The man and the woman were created as innocent beings. They only fell from this innocence through the agency of a divine creation. By thus creating the serpent to mislead the man and woman, {JHWH} is revealed as a deciever, a trickster, an arbitrary and capricious malevolence.

Only fools and fiends would willingly worship such an being. Free yourself from your enslavement, from your superstitions. Get real.