I don't see why this is so complicated. Surely you "get" it, but are choosing not to believe it. The plan is like this: God created a perfect world and in it he put man who he gave free will to follow God or not. Man chose not to follow God's directions and sin entered the world. This sin seperated us from God. All are born with this original sin and must be reconciled to God. Since there is nothing we can do through deed are good works to overcome this, God sent his son to pay the sacrifice in our place. Now through believing in him we can be reconciled to God. It was the ultimate sacrifice done in our place.
OK, so apparently I wasn't missing something. It sounds marginally less absurd the way you describe it, but essentially that's exactly what I said above. I hoped there was some logic to it that I hadn't noticed. Obviously not.
I do not believe that you are so arrogant to think that you have done nothing wrong in your life. That you have never wronged anyone or hurt their feelings, yelled without cause, said something hurtful, or in anyway acted in such a manner to hurt someone else. That would be classified as a sin. So even if you do not want to believe in the original sin, you have fallen short of the perfection that God would require but for the perfection of Jesus.I have wronged many people in my life, and I have been wronged by many people. If that is your definition of sin, then we are all sinners. However, I would be fairly angry if someone who had wronged me expected my forgiveness because they had decided to believe in the 2000 year old ghost of a Jewish carpenter. It may be enough for you and your god, but my standards are higher.
Now you must be honest that you have made the choice not to belive. You hav been exposed to religious training and the Bible, the evidence of God's existence and his word has been given to you. You chose not to belive under the quise of you need more evidence.The available evidence is not sufficient for me to determine for certain whether or not there is a god. In the absence of such evidence, I assume that there is not - as in this case, I think an absence of evidence can be taken as circumstantial evidence of absence. Regarding your particular god, there is enough evidence to show that he cannot possibly exist. You believe without evidence, and think that such gullibility - or faith, if you prefer - will guarantee you salvation from something which your religion invented in the first place. I believe only in things that actually exist.
--
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts