1. How can a descendant of Adam & Eve be considered morally impudent as a result of others actions. There is no psychological scientific) basis for suggesting as much, and it is contrary to the popular belief that we have free will.
2. Original Sin is also a furfy because you humans cannot be judged for their actions if they are 'sinful by nature'. Moral concepts such as sin apply only to humans because they have a choice. If there is no choice, than humans are free of moral responsibility.
If you appreciate this, you realise that Christian philosophy is not a philosophy for humans, but to cast them into the Dark Ages, which is exactly where they went between 500-900AD. Consider that a human need only rationalise that they are 'sinful by nature' to accept their flaws as much as they might claim to be repentent. They cannot escape their nature, and if their nature is flawed, then they can evade moral responsibility for the most vile crimes against other men. Jesus is presented to us as a victim - never as a perpetrator - but if anyone has moral responsibility its the 'perfect' God that has no limits in their capacity to heal. Any suggestion to the contrary is blatant rationalisation.