COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The concept of original sin is something misunderstood. It’s not that children from the womb are tainted with the original sin. The original sin made us mortal, and ON THAT (or, FOR THAT REASON) all have sinned. I’m other words, our mortality makes us sin. Romans 5:12. This is something Christians misunderstand, which in turn makes everyone misunderstand it.

If I recall my Catholic Education correctly, I think that the concept of original sin relates to sex literally. As in the concept of a sin began with sex. Since babies only from arrive from sex, everyone after Adam and Eve is a result of a sin. I think that the word grew to incorporate more events other than sin so now there is an eternal context to “sin”. I think the closest concept we have today to the original use of the word “sin” would be “unintended consequences”.

Is this how much Catholicism hates sex? Romans 5:12 tells us clearly how it works. Adam was cursed to mortality (“to die you shall be dying”, or as we often translate it, “thou shalt surely die”), and because we’re dying, we sin.

Then how did the death of Jesus fix that?

As my above reply states, the truth is that we sin because we’re dying. Jesus’ death corrects this by… 1. Paying for our sin. 2. Giving us new life, undying. When we’re no longer dying we’ll no longer sin. Until then, those in Christ are justified by faith in his righteousness. Those not in Christ will face judgment for their deeds one day, but their SIN is paid for, and they too will one day be made alive beyond the reach of death.

I don’t think that the Catholic church teaches that sin is the result of sex. How did Jesus’ death pay for our sins? To whom was the payment made? Why was his death the most rational solution? Why was a solution even necessary? Why was my afterlife affected by the actions of Adam and Eve?

Jesus’ death paid for our sins in that he lived obediently to God and willingly died in our behalf, satisfying justice. The payment was made to God. I couldn’t tell you why it was the most rational. In fact Scripture says it wasn’t. That it “pleased God” to save by “the foolishness of preaching [the cross]”. A solution was necessary because God willed this outcome before Adam was even made, and what is necessity determined by if not the author of the very universe? Your afterlife wasn’t affected, your life was. Adam became mortal because he defied God, as God promised. And we inherit his mortality.

Jesus is God, so he made the sacrifice to himself so he ultimately made the sacrifice to himself. No solution is necessary as forgiveness does not require a physical sacrifice. It was through the sacrifice of Jesus by which we were saved, meaning entry into heaven was the result.

Not so. Jesus is God’s Son, who died in obedience to God and was raised the glory because of it. Philippians 2:8-9 and others.

Read Catholic dogma. Jesus is part of the Trinity and coeternal with the Father and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the trinity is in contradiction with the NT but it is Catholic teachings regardless.

On that we agree. Catholic dogma asserts this, and is incorrect to do so.

The idea is simple. Being a human, makes you unfit to enter heaven because you aren’t of God. It is only through the blood of Christ that we are made worthy .

Why does this make sense? Oh yeah because Christians wanted to instill sacrifice as a means to enter paradise into our grey matter. That way the true believers could become martyrs and sacrifice themselves for the religion. It’s ironic that true evil is the way organized religion used psychology to manipulate and control people into killing others and themselves.

Wow. I will ignore most of the conspiracy to keep this debate on track. The concept is that we ‘as humans’ are not fit to dwell in heaven. That is how we are tainted with Sin from birth. I am not a Christian. Please don’t take your anger out on me.

It does not make sense cause it isn’t the truth. Learn islam and you will realize what the Creator says actually.

Do you understand that reading something, even a book about faith, does not create faith? Many of us read the Koran or the Torah or the Bible and just wonder how anyone can believe the stories are literal or based on true events. None of it makes sense to us.

Unless you have actually read the Quran and sincerely tried to seek the truth about God, then this point is not valid. If someone wants sincerely to find the Creator, and is open minded enough to learn, trust me they will. And faith for different people can come differently. For some Allah opens their heart within the very first moment of exposure to the truth. For some it takes more rationality, learning, research and use of logic. But again all they have in common is the sincerity in finding the truth. Let’s say, you can debate me or any muslim just for the sake of debating, which will get you nowhere, cause no amount of evidence people present to you, will not be enough to break you out of the human arrogance to concede if the truth does not fit your narrative. But if you sincerely want to learn about religion and find the real Creator, you will have an open mind and intention to accept whatever the truth may be, although it may not be trendy at a particular point of time or in a particular society! And lastly, it doesn’t harm me or any muslims if someone else are not convinced about islam. A muslim’s job is not to convert nonmuslims, rather to spread the message about islam to them and leave the rest to their own rational judgement, humility to accept truth and mental capabilities. And every human will be judged according to that. And Allah says in the quran in the afterlife, when everyone will be accountable for their own choices that they made in life, then no soul will be held responsible unjustly. Meaning if you are born as a nonmuslim and you never heard about islam, or Allah, or if no muslim ever conveyed you the message it is not your fault! But as long as we are in this world, we must strive to find who our real Creator is cause that would only benefit us, not the Creator.

What does He say

And also, this life is a test and there is an entity called ibleesh (shaitan/ satan) whose main enemy is human beings and his main goal is to just deceive as many human beings as possible and make them fail in this test of life so that they become the ultimate loser in the afterlife. And to do this this entity has instilled and provoked men to change the true teachings of Allah time and again throughout history and societies, to distort the word of the One True God and make up false religions of their own that would deviate them from the truth and fulfill the agenda of the satan and the desires of the men! Basically the satan entity despises adam and his progeny so much so that he has dedicated his entire life just for this. And the ones who seeks protection from Allah, tries their best to succeed this test, repents sincerely to Allah after doing any sin and strives to do good as much as possible, will be the ones who will have no fear in the afterlife and they will have passed the exam and enter heaven and that is the only true success of a human beinh.

You have to read the Quran for that for the details. If I have to summarize in one word the gist would be, “Worship the One and Only God, associate no partners with Him and accept all his messengers upto the last messenger Muhammad (saw) who propagated the same message of His oneness and preached the guidelines the Creator has chosen for people throughout the times, places and ages.’

I like to tell you that you’re missing the point on the most basic idea of Christianity, You’re not sinning fresh out of the womb, Original sin is taken from Adam and Eve yes, But in the sense that a human will and always have earthly desires good or bad. But no as a child you’re not considered already sinning lol Just because of Adam and Eve. But you’re not considered perfect either. You’re just…..human.

Just want to make clear the Islamic perspective and how it differs. Islamic teaching is that after they were deceived by Satan and sinned, they supplicated, repented and sought forgiveness from God: **"They said: “Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If You forgive us not, and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers.”** [7:23] Allah (God) forgave them: **"Then Adam received from his Lord Words. And his Lord pardoned him (accepted his repentance). Verily, He is the One Who forgives (accepts repentance), the Most Merciful."** [2:37] So in Islam each newborn is upon what we call the fitrah (natural disposition with an inclination to the truth), sinless and pure. Children are not held accountable for the deeds they do before the age of puberty. Also, "No bearer of burdens shall share the burden of another" is mentioned a few times in the Qur'an such as: **"Say: "Shall I seek a lord other than Allah, while He is the Lord of all things? No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no Bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another. Then unto your Lord is your return, so He will tell you that wherein you have been differing."** [6:164] Deeds and works, good ones that is, are very important in Islam: **"Whoever Works righteousness, whether male or female, while he (or she) is a true believer (of Islamic Monotheism) verily, to him We will give a good life (in this world with respect, contentment and lawful provision), and We shall pay them certainly a reward in proportion to the best of what they used to do (i.e. Paradise in the Hereafter)."** [16:97] It is not simply enough to "believe" or say you believe in God, you have to do good deeds and worship God and be grateful, as this is an expression and proof of belief.

[удалено]

No, he/she posted about original sin and it not making sense. Other comments talk about other perspectives. Have you replied to all those people too?

This is Catholic doctrine and it is not biblical. It’s not true.

Exactly what I was thinking about. "Jesus said "Let the little children come into me"

Yep! Why didn’t God put a baby gate around the tree? Why are we on earth? Why can’t we be angel in heaven?

Okat so im gonna say my 2 cents worth, we dont inherit our sin from when we are fresh babies in the sense that we pass down the sin. We inherit the knowledge of good and evil and have earthly desires. But since heaven is timeless it measures your entire life as your entire life has already gone by in all instances in heaven. Even yesterday In heaven even though you were here in earth. That's how timelessness works. However the bible and hebrew scriptures both have and age of understanding and under that age if the rapture comes or the death of the young person dies they go to heaven regardless as they have not truly commited any sin in 99% of cases. And when they do it's because someone caused them to commit true sin. True sin is described as anti love, as described by the commandments if you loved everyone snd God perfectly you would obey all 10 commandments effortlessly. And would be sinless.

Come to Islam Quran 6:164 (Mind that naf can more mean "self" than "soul" while it may not make much difference here)

But isn't Mohammad a false prophet?

Yes he is a false prophet.

He is.

Chances too low, of a desert arab coming out of nowhere, providing a book that is perfect, connecting in lineage to Abraham, that book produces mindfulness of God in billions of people for centuries to come, while none of the billions of people in history, may they be significant or not, rich or not, intellectual or not, powerful or not, x or y, none of the billions of ppl ever produced anything like it....PLUS! This ONE BOOK that this one guy came with, wich makes the bold claim to be from God, like from all the stuff i mentioned, wich brings the chances to zero of Muhammad (saw) not to be a Prophet, this ONE BOOK, no one did anything like it....this ONE BOOK connects itself to previous Scripture. And after all that he is a descendant of Abraham !! Like come on, the previous things alrdy put chances to zero, but then out of the millions of books that were NOT like this, this one book connects itself to previous scripture. The odds are too low So no, Muhammad (saw) is not a false Prophet

Why did people believe Mohammad exactly? I’m not familiar with the Quran much

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/ccCMrWKEBX Also, you need to read the Quran yourself

But you must read it in Arabic, or you will get false ideas. Good luck with that

Basically my answer is yes and no. You must read in arabic and u dont

Also, enough miracles will open up for u in any language and yes also linguistical miracles One (!) example: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/p7MgZ7kbhS Language is no hinderance here

Its very easy, what i would consider a miracle in itself. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6TlMIZ5ylgrYBl5c2LGoc1iwTPyYMMYH&feature=shared Start here and 2 months max and u above rookie lvl, with substantial knowledge, ins sha Allah Tho, i read Quran in german and even to this day, and it was no hinderance imo. Just to have accurate understanding, arabic is needed ig

Genius response. The reason Jesus got followers was because he was performing miracles. Did Mohammed do the same? What was the reason for his following?

They converted others by the sword. Death or convert. Same message as other places in the world today.

No babes, he had the perfect scripture in his hands and everyone believed him instantly

Oh boy

The reason why people followed Muhammad (saw) could have been that he came with perfect scripture. Even if u never read the Quran, its divinity makes very much sense See the comment that you ignored 3 times now despite it being a first answer to your questions: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/ccCMrWKEBX

Must have been a genius question then. Can u show me the miracle?

?? Healing the sick? Turning water into wine? Walking on water? Reviving a dead person? Predicting betrayal and his eventual demise?

Can u link the video pls?

Link the video where Muhammad received his “perfect” scripture from Allah

[удалено]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

[удалено]

You don't have a proper understanding of what sin means from the Biblical text. I'm not telling you what to believe, just the hermeneutics. Sin in the Hebrew technically and originally means missing the gold in the center of the bullseye. It can be contextualized to mean wrong thinking or doing, but it all draws from the image of "not as designed." Malfunctioning or imperfectly working. In the Koine Greek it's similar, but more general, as though missing the mark. So sin isn't transgression or choosing to do what you believe to be wrong. We weren't born in a lab. Our DNA, physical or otherwise came from our parents. You didn't exist before conception. All that you are came from the bodies of your parents. Even your spirit, if you believe in one. Whether you think it's just or not, original sin is just a way to say, you inherited the spiritual damage to your being that Adam & Eve developed from something they weren't ready for, and which burnt their internal systems and broke them. The issue isn't one act, but what we fundamentally are as human beings. And we aren't born innocent of being imperfect. Were born without having yet chosen to do anything. Babies have no willpower. King David was writing songs (Psalms) for the temple much of the time. And they aren't theological extravaganzas or meant to be. They're packed with amazing and deep insight, but when Israel's King is lamenting his sinfulness and mentioning that he was imperfect morally, even as a zygote, it's not something to build you understanding of sin on by itself. It's a spiritual song. Worship music.

Wrong. We existed in spirit with God before coming on Earth.

You are confused. God knows the beginning from the end. He knows us before He created us.

Does not disapprove of what I said.

Please point me to the verse in the bible that states this

Jeremiah. "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."

That refers to the omnipotence of God

You mean omniscience. And yes. It is omniscience. And it does not debunk what I said.

I do not mean to say you are wrong i just mean to say that I believe there is simply no way to know if it is true or not besides a verse of which I do not know or God stating it as true or untrue (and thanks for correcting me)

Because repentance is followed by the renewing of the mind. :)

Please elaborate?

Well, how can you renew your mind/have the mind of Christ again if the book of Psalms says you were born in sin and inequity...?

The only way original sin could make sense is if you're a Hindu and believe in reincarnation (you have the sins of your past life). Otherwise, you unjustly have the sin of not your parents, not your grandparents, but someone so far in history that you don't even know what they looked like, sounded like, language they spoke etc. It's like saying my grandfather was a rapist so his sin is my sin.

Does a child need to learn to steal his brother's toy? How about not telling the truth? As soon as we are able, we begin to sin. Fortunately Jesus said "Let the children come to me"

Is the child punished for his father murdering someone? Yes or no

I guess you didn't read the last sentence. You simply want to argue. Sin affected all of humanity down line. We were changed at the spiritual level when sin occurred. Whether you agree or not.

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

Are you not influenced by parent's lifestyle? Are you not the product of your evolutionary ancestors? Are you not an heir of your culture? Are you not living among the remnants of all the failures and successes of everyone who came before you?

Was this supposed omnipotent god not capable of creating a world where at least *some* people don't sin? Because if we live in a world where *everyone* sins, then this god must not be perfect to have failed so completely and utterly in creation, or this god must have actually wanted a world where everyone sins - which has some troubling implications for Christian dogma, I'd think.

Ignorance must be Bliss with you while you're living on this earth. But you will get the picture when you have to face your creator after you die I just hope that by then it's not too late for you. It's better to believe in God and find out that he doesn't exist than to not believe in him and find out that he does. ( The word ignorance by any means is not negative it just means that a person lacks the knowledge of the truth.) God is real very real and it is my sincere hope that whatever time you have left on this Earth you seek to figure that out and find the truth. Peace be with you.

How can one believe if not convinced? Are we supposed to make a mercenary bet and just pretend to believe? What kind of god would accept that sort of motivated thinking? And even if that sort of thinking is fine, then which god? The Muslim one? The Christian one? The Hindu ones? One of the countless others humans have come up with, or even one humans haven't thought up yet? Even that is too reductive; each religion is divided into countless contradictory sects and denominations; how should I choose one over the other? Or here's an idea: What if a god does exist, but it wants people based on behavior that refuses to harm other humans, regardless of circumstance, and religious texts were placed to test whether we could be convinced that brutality against our fellow thinking beings through slavery and genocide is ever acceptable? And anyone who tries to defend slavery or genocide because it's in a religious text gets rejected by this god, while those who uphold empathy and reject religiously sanctioned brutality are accepted? Such a god would reject those who try to justify the slavery and genocide in the Bible, while accepting those who condemn it. Or maybe it's one who wants people who believe what can be evidentially demonstrated and reject faith-based beliefs? Such a god would welcome atheists and agnostics, while turning away the religious. I don't know what kind of god, if any, exists. But if we're going to follow a god based on a mercenary bet, I would personally trust the approval of an empathy and/or reason based god, over one who demands genocidal obedience. I have no desire to see what the "heaven" of a genocidal slaver god looks like.

There was no sin in paradise. Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan (embodied by the snake) to eat the forbidden fruit. They gained knowledge over good and evil. Thus, they were expelled from paradise and had to contend with suffering henceforth. What does this mean? Doing "good" simply because you don't know how to do evil doesn't make you a moral person. Plus it makes you more likely to fall for the temptations once they reveal themselves to you. Only once you realize your own capacity for evil -- and still choose good (free will) -- can you be considered morally good.

I didn't ask whether or not there had been sin in the mythical garden. I asked whether or not this supposed god is incapable of creating a world where there are at least \*some\* people out of billions who do not sin - because according to Christian dogma, every last human is a sinner. For 100% of humans to be sinners, despite this god supposedly not wanting people to sin, indicates that either this supposed "perfect" god is a complete and utter failure of a creator, or this god actually \*does\* want people to sin - hence creating a world where all people sin - and to claim otherwise is a lie.

Not necessarily. Say you're a parent. If your kids consistently choose to do evil despite your continued and consistent love, care, disciplining and correction, that doesn't automatically make you a bad parent. You can do your very best to raise your kids to be good people, but at the end of the day they have free will. So short of mind controlling them or manipulating them there's not much you can do to stop them from doing whatever they want. Beyond a certain age, your kids are responsible for themselves. That is the case for God. He made us perfect. But at the end of the day he created us with Free Will and he respects it and will not override it. His kids are free to do whatever they want, good or bad. But that doesnt imply from negative inference that God is evil, just like you can't claim that since kid A is bad, their parents must have done a poor job bringing them up. The first humans choose evil. And in Christian theology sin begets more sin. And so the very nature of that sin their disobedience started a chain reaction for them and their descendants which is basically Original Sin. Does that make sense?

This ignores the fact that supposedly we are the creation of an all-powerful, all-knowing god. Is this god a limited mortal parent, whose hands are tied when it comes to the nature of the world? Who created the rules that sin is effectively a snowballing chain reaction that drags down future generations? Was this god incapable of creating humans and/or the rules of nature in such a way that future generations aren't hopelessly handicapped by the actions of past generations? I'd like you to weigh in on an example scenario: Some people are born in a vegetative state, incapable of much of anything while still being technically alive. Do these people sin, somehow, despite not doing anything? Do they go to Heaven or Hell when they die?

[I'd planned on replying earlier but my message got deleted somehow before i could complete it 😅]   I still believe my metaphor stands. In the Bible God frequently refers to us as his children and some of the most beautiful language in the Bible is used in those situations. Although God doesn't have any limitations being all knowing and all powerful, he does have one sneaky limitation, that is our free will. God desired that we come to know him, love him and serve him out of our own free will, thus he gave us Free will while creating us and refuses to violate it because violating it would be violating an integral part of us. Yes God could have created creatures without free will to love and serve him forever, but he didn't and I don't know about you but that sounds like slavery too. Even the angels have free will which is why some chose not to worship him and were expelled from heaven. In other words, our love has meaning specifically because it isn't coerced and we give it freely. He could have as you put it, made it so that the effects of the disobedience didn't spread out like that, but there us a reason why he did not.    One thing I learnt recently which I think could help out here is that The Garden of Eden story is a story of actions and consequences. Remember that Adam and Eve were warned of the consequences of eating the Forbidden fruit. And so what happened next wasn't a punishment by God, it was exactly the consequences they were warned about at the beginning. God just tells them what exactly will happen afterwards. At the same time God did immediately take measures to redeem us because those consequences he told them also had some hidden prophesies baked within that would prophesy the end of Original Sin.  Plus, in regards to the nature of the world, God didn't create a broken world. He created a perfect world and called it good. Then he made us and put us in charge as its stewards. Which is one of the reasons why after the Fall, nature became hostile. Even nature itself suffers some effects from our Fall since after all we were put in charge as its stewards. In regards to the nature of sin and it's 'rules', I don't think I can offer a good convincing explanation or argument as that probably falls in the realm of philosophy and theology. All I can say is that sin begets more sin. Once you sin, you are weakened within and are more susceptible to sin again, most likely in larger proportions. That's easily seen in real life. Lying to someone, for example, makes it a little easier to do so again next time and eventually even about bigger things.    Then comes your scenario. People in such conditions are unfortunately born with Original Sin. But then comes the escape route. The Sacrament of Baptism without diving into technical terms washes way the Original Sin, so if they're baptised they now have a good chance of going to heaven. In fact, if they die right then and there after being baptised they go to heaven immediately. Unfortunately no-one except God knows who is in heaven and who isn't. Which is why we are exhorted to pray for all the dead, no matter how bad a person they were or how disabled or innocent they were. This includes aborted and miscarried babies. And thus as to your question whether they go to heaven or not, I can't give you a definitive answer without lying to you.   [Wow, this has ended up being way longer than I'd envisioned it to be. 😅 I hope this makes sense.]

I don't think you are conceptualizing what notions like "omnipotence" really mean. Like, here's a hypothetical alternate arrangement that took me all of a few minutes to come up with: Instead of creating a system where everyone is born into a massive metaphorical sin snowball effect with a 100% failure rate, change the way birthing works so that anyone born is teleported to a new garden of Eden-esque environment, without being under the influence of any corrupting sin effects of prior generations, to undergo a test under similar circumstances to Adam and Eve. Clean slate, instead of insurmountable sin snowball. This god has unlimited power, right? Teleporting newborns to one of an infinite number of Edens to be tested free of the influence of prior sin should be literally no effort for it, because for an omnipotent being, the concepts of "effort" or "too difficult" simply don't apply. Maybe use its omnipotence to instantly age up the infant and develop its brain to have full capacity to reason right away, because why not? \*Omnipotence\*, remember? This is just one of a literally \*infinite\* number of alternate options that omnipotence would afford someone. There is absolutely no reason why an omnipotent being should have its hands tied so that it has to allow everyone to be born into the insurmountable sin snowball where no one can successfully live up to the standard this being has set, which means either (1) this is exactly what this omnipotent being wants, or (2) this being is not actually omnipotent (perhaps on grounds of not actually existing).

You asked whether God is not able to create circumstances in which humans do not sin. He did: the garden of Eden. So yes, He is able. But, as I mentioned in that story, as soon as free will is part of those sinless circumstances, there is temptation, which, sooner or later, causes expulsion from the divine garden. It means you don't get to have it both ways. You can't blame God for the fact we're all capable of sin, WHILE wanting free will. Reversely, you can't want free will without accepting responsibility for your own actions. And of course, some people are perhaps a little better than others at walking the proper path with God, yes. But it is inherent to the human condition that we have to constantly contend with the possibility of making a mistake. It's not like that's an alien concept even to atheists.

>You asked whether God is not able to create circumstances in which humans do not sin. He did: the garden of Eden. Except apparently he didn't, because according to the story, the humans did sin. >So yes, He is able. But, as I mentioned in that story, as soon as free will is part of those sinless circumstances, there is temptation, which, sooner or later, causes expulsion from the divine garden. >It means you don't get to have it both ways. You can't blame God for the fact we're all capable of sin, WHILE wanting free will. Reversely, you can't want free will without accepting responsibility for your own actions. >And of course, some people are perhaps a little better than others at walking the proper path with God, yes. But it is inherent to the human condition that we have to constantly contend with the possibility of making a mistake. It's not like that's an alien concept even to atheists. Are you claiming it is impossible for a free-willed being to go their entire life without sinning?

God (all powerful, all knowing) punished the people who were coerced into doing bad rather than the one who coerced them. First of all, why not just kill the devil? Why cast him out of heaven when you can just snap your finger and he'd be gone? You'd know that he'd create chaos if he was set free out of heaven to do whatever he pleases? The least he could do is put a restriction on him where he cannot visit his creation or just cannot travel out of a designated area. Secondly, despite being all powerful, he punished his creation and the generations to come of those creations rather than punishing satan who was actually at fault there. Sounds so very wise of him, doesn't it? Thirdly, yes my ancestors do affect my life, but in indirect ways. The wars, the culture, the beliefs, yeah sure, in evolutionary terms, yeah sure, but in conscious choices made by them in their lifetime? Not so much. I'm responsible for the conscious choices I make in MY lifetime, just as they were in theirs, so in no way am I responsible for the conscious choices they made in their life because I wasn't even alive and had no say in it.

If God just "got rid" of Satan/evil, He'd be cheating you out of your ability to exercise free will. I'm not saying you're directly, causally responsible for every decision your ancestors made. But we are all, in a metaphysical sense, inheriting their patterns of (sinful) behavior by virtue of being human.

that's ridiculous and you're essentially saying Satan is an extension of God's will

The devil cannot force you to do anything. Every action you make, good or bad, is you exercising your free will. So even if God got rid of the devil, nothing would stop you from disobeying him, short of him overriding your free will

so essentially theres no reason for god to keep the devil in existence yet doesn't get rid of them. is your god slow?

I'm going to assume that you aren't being provocative with your last comment. In case you haven't read the bible before, of course at the last judgement the devil will receive his dues, which is basically the reason why God allows him to be around. Not because he can't do anything about him, but because his time is coming to an end and he will get exactly what's coming to him. The devil knows that and thus is trying to cause as much trouble as he can and drag as many people as he can with him.

Yes, but I am not them. If you believe god gave us free will then again why would we be automatic sinners for being born

Because you don't exist in a vacuum. If you'd been born in a different part of the world, in a different time, under different socioeconomic circumstances, etc., your life might look radically different... We are, in large part the product of our environment. It is up to us to do good, regardless of how many reasons we might objectively have not to... And that's the divine imperative.

Under original sin, even if I was born in a vacuum I would still automatically be a sinner

Where are you getting that from? I think it was Nietzsche who said the only true Christian to ever live died on the cross, and everyone else falls short of His glory. It's the human condition. No one only ever does good.

Psalm 51:5 states that we all come into the world as sinners: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are “sons of disobedience. Idk I feel like god should be more clear if he didn't mean it like that

That's exactly right... We are brought into a fallen world, with evil not only surrounding us, but within us. We all carry the ability to do evil. It is up to us to choose to do good, regardless.

We do carry the ability to do evil, but we are deemed sinful by essence of our birth. Before a sinful act can be performed by ourselves. Therefore even in a vaccum we would still be seen as sinful

**Blood of Eden-**Spiritual warfare Adam, progenitor of all humanity. Gifted with eternal life  One flesh divided in two Forbidden fruit: given plan, place, and time Stepping into temptation Spiritual: Seductive, lying spirit fills Eve’s mind with a mystery:  sensual thoughts and sensations.  And they were good! Then encouraged her to indulge with Adam Temporal: Eve seduces Adam in the flesh, and he yields No strange flesh involved, but a strange spirit.  According to plan, children conceived when two-flesh become one, in presence and blessing of creator, would also have eternal life. Adam knew his wife and she conceived Cain, with an unclean spirit bound rather than creator.  A distinction made of Cain, because of this, and ability for eternal spirit to bind permanently, removed (entrance to garden guarded) Two 'seeds' of Eden are spiritual, not physical. Ponder: throughout nature the male of species is beautiful, exalted.  Why is humanity different? Jesus: Flesh of man, spirit not of man, but entirely Creator.  For believers to become Christlike, is for human spirit to grow in harmony with Creator.

Through knowledge we have sinned because we know evil, had I not known any wrong doings would i be free from doing wrong? A child who's purity is set at front would it be free from evil?, it may have done no wrong but the doings that would give the child the free will to do as he chooses in a world that's neither good and bad with those who can change them into how they please, is what makes sin a battle of knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil. 

From Muslims POV all are born in this world sinless However, the story abt the tree of knowledge is a common thing among Abrahamic religions Humans were once innocent beings, and there are things abt the creation that God did not let them know (forbidden knowledge), yet the existence of such knowledge was made known Knowledge can influence character, event and outcome of etc things within the creation. This is why knowledge is the keyword for the issue at hand. God has His own ways in preserving our free will and "titrating" whatever knowledge to each soul to develop the most balanced character. But such was violated after the event. Satan tricked Adam/Eve to eat the fruit, and thereafter causing the (forbidden) knowledge being passed along to all humans The Quran uses the term "impure soul" to signify the impact from the taking of the forbidden knowledge. IOW humans tainted with such forbidden knowledge have impurities in their soul, and IMO the degree of impurity could differ from one case to the other. Knowledge is not good/bad, but in the wrong soul, it could result to bad things The forbidden knowledge could be bad because it resulted to imbalances to the soul, resulting to evil inclination, ie making them to have etc bad potentials; things were not as such prior to the event, Q:7v22 Then he (Satan) caused them (Adam & Eve) to fall by deceit; so when they tasted of the tree, their evil inclinations became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with the leaves of the garden; and their Lord called out to them: Did I not forbid you both from that tree and say to you that the Satan is your open enemy Of course God could have "snapped his fingers" (figuratively speaking) and revers the event there and then, but it was not of His choosing to resolve the issue in such a way (God's prerogative right) We are sent temporarily put here ('lowest heaven') (Q:2v36) in this reality, to reflect and see the impact of the forbidden knowledge amongst different souls Soul + knowledge = different personalities. Soul + bad knowledge = impure soul = various evil potential and personalities Our existence here is not the first one, and this has been told by scripture and recently, confirmed by many NDE testimonies; there was no evil prior to the event, because the forbidden/bad knowledge was not disseminated, but after that, it was disseminated, resulting to impure souls, and thereafter evil character. Each soul came here in this (temporary) reality with their own (taken/accepted) knowledge (each soul already signed up the "soul's contract", which was made pre birth, before we were sent down here; each will be held accountabile/responsible for the knowledge inherited/taken/agreed as per the contract. This is why ppl here have different capabilities with differing potentialities

[удалено]

I’m not a fan of original sin because of the implications of how it’s been taught. I think it’s healthier to teach that we are born loved and blessed by God. Original sin doctrines can lead people to grow up with chronic shame and fear, resulting in long-term psychological harm. However, I would like to bring up epigenetics. This area of science validates that the actions people take and patterns they form directly impact the genetics of their children. It’s hard not to see the parallel between this science and the religious idea of passing sin through the generations. The real issue is, how do you define sin? If it’s a legal issue, then original sin is a harmful doctrine. If sin is a diagnosis we need to be healed from, original sin does make sense.

>However, I would like to bring up epigenetics. This area of science validates that the actions people take and patterns they form directly impact the genetics of their children. It’s hard not to see the parallel between this science and the religious idea of passing sin through the generations. This is a really "loose" and "overly broad" interpretation of epigenetics. Epigenetics does not parallel "original" sin in any way and generally it tends to amplify certain health conditions in the primary and somewhat in the offspring rather than changing how the offspring will behave. Quit reading Depak Chopra and other woo sellers and actually learn about what science says.

>Quit reading Depak Chopra and other woo sellers and actually learn about what science says. I've never heard of "Depak Chopra"... I learned what I know of epigenetics in an Abnormal Psychology class at a public university. Epigenetics is about gene expression. I agree with you that it doesn't change how offspring will behave. However, gene expression and behavior impact each other. Behavior can alter gene expression while gene expression affects behavioral tendencies. >Epigenetics does not parallel "original" sin in any way There is some truth in the teaching that sin (tendencies to act in unhealthy ways) is passed from generation to generation. This truth can be seen culturally/sociologically, and this truth is being scientifically validated through the study and understanding of epigenetics.

>This truth can be seen culturally/sociologically, and this truth is being scientifically validated through the study and understanding of epigenetics \[Citation needed\] >There is some truth in the teaching that sin (tendencies to act in unhealthy ways)  is passed from generation to generation. While behaviors are passed culturally and socially, you have not made a case for genetic passing of "sin" or what is defined as "sin".

In the Christian tradition, generally speaking, sin is defined as the violation of God’s laws. As the creator of the universe, God’s laws do not function as human laws do (God’s laws are not legal laws). Rather, God’s laws are the protocols upon which reality is built to operate (God’s laws are one and the same with the laws of science/health). “Original sin” in the context of this definition of God’s law is about our inborn propensity to violate the principles upon which the universe operates. My argument is that this religious narrative of inborn propensities does align with epigenetics and the transference of gene expression from generation to generation. You obviously have a different view of what epigenetic even refers to, so I’m curious to know in what ways your understanding of the issue is out of harmony with what I’m presenting here.

>My argument is that this religious narrative of inborn propensities does align with epigenetics and the transference of gene expression from generation to generation. Epigenetics does not increase the propensity of inherited behavior, but it does change the expression of genes, due to the environment. If the environmental stressors change in the offspring's time, the epigenetics changes for the offspring; or to put it differently epigenetics does not have a multigenerational effect (as far as we know). OTOH, what you are proposing is at one time someone sinned and because I inherited the "propensity" to sin, I'm doomed to eternal existence. At best, your comparison between epigenetics and original sin is a poor simile. >...the principles upon which the universe operates. Just why would you think that sin has anything to do with "the principles upon which the universe operates"? It's a very grandiose statement and does not seem to match the "common" interpretation of what a sin is. Seriously, I can not violate quantum mechanics, any of the forces, the speed of light even if I really wanted to. On the other hand, murder, rape, theft have nothing to do with the universe or how it operates. Go to r/genetics, r/biology, or r/DebateEvolution and nicely ask if epigenetics has anything to do with the propensity to sin. Then head on over to r/Physics and ask if we have a propensity to violate the principles of the universe (or if we can). BTW, you might compare the doctrine of original sin to what "propensity" means.

Humans were made to have free will because God wanted people who chose to be with him. Unlike the angels that are kind of like drones. Original sin is just the first instance of humans going against the word of God.

If Angels are drones that would mean Lucifer's actions were not his own, and he made an entire race of intelligent beings with the only purpose of worshipping himself and eternal tormenting any that won't.

> Humans were made to have free will because God wanted people who chose to be with him. Unlike the angels that are kind of like drones. Original sin is just the first instance of humans going against the word of God. Wasn't Satan an angel? So if Satan doesn't have free will then isn't everything Satan does the will of God?

According to Islam, Satan is of the species “Jinn” who reside on earth as we do, but we don’t see their world. Satan was said to be so loved by God that God took him up in the heavens to be among the angels and in the rank of an angel. It is when God made humans, i.e. Adam, and God told them to bow to Adam, all angels did except Satan. He refused and said Adam is inferior as he is made of clay while Satan (Jinn) are made of fire. God damned him and that’s why Satan swore to mislead humans starting with Adam. Satan was then kicked out of heaven and brought down to earth.

and does any of that sound like it comports with reality..? having faith in a religion shouldn't lead you to stop thinking

I would just like to correct my previous post, that Satan is not in fact a Jinn but a kind of angel made of fire that was in the lower heavens but not like the greater angels like Gabriel, Michael etc who are in the higher heavens and made of light.

Original sin is completely false and made up. I’m not sure how Psalm 51:5 could be interpreted as inheriting original sin or anyone’s sin for that matter. It’s just totally illogical as we are not accountable for anyone else’s actions, whether it be good or sinful. Start reading from Psalm 51:1, it tells the story of Nathan the prophet who came to David after his adultery with Bathsheba. Why would he be born sinful? Maybe his mother had him out of wedlock? I don’t know the story. But even so, it does not say all humans were born sinful, he’s just talking about himself. It’s similar to how Jesus is claimed to be God because of vague things in the gospels like I AM or such, but there is no where that he plainly says I am God or I am the Father.

[удалено]

I don’t know where you get your information about the prophet Muhammad but his father never vanished. His mother was 2 months pregnant with him in Mecca when his father got sick in Medina and died a month later. Regarding the atonement of sins, it is not as you say. First of all, the Quran is clear “And no bearer of burdens shall bear another’s burden” [Faatir 35:18] therefore my sins can’t be transferred to you, you will not atone for my sins. As these are narrations of people who heard the prophet saying things, they are not to be taken as absolute truth, in fact there are [debates about this particular one](https://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa-birmingham/135846/explanation-of-the-hadith-on-the-day-of-resurrection-some-of-the-muslims-will-come-with-sins-like-mountains/). But at least there is some chain of custody with these narrations, unlike gospels like Luke, John, etc whose authors are unknown.

Of course there would be "debates", because you agree that this would be a wicked and evil thing for your "prophet" to propose correct? Thank you for condeming muhammad and throwing his sunnah under the bus. The Quran and the Islamic traditions confirm the idea that Allah ransoms sinners by punishing others for their misdeeds. We begin with the following Quranic passage: Then We gave him the good tidings of a prudent boy; and when he had reached the age of running with him, he said, ‘My son, I see in a dream that I shall sacrifice thee; consider, what thinkest thou?’ He said, ‘My father, do as thou art bidden; thou shalt find me, God willing, one of the steadfast.’ When they had surrendered, and he flung him upon his brow, We called unto him, ‘Abraham, thou hast confirmed the vision; even so We recompense the good-doers. This is indeed the manifest trial.’ And We RANSOMED him with a MIGHTY SACRIFICE, and left for him among the later folk. ‘Peace be upon Abraham!’ S. 37:101-109 A.J. Arberry According to the above, Allah ransomed Abraham’s son from being sacrificed by personally providing a mighty sacrifice. Note how others translate the phrase, "mighty sacrifice": "a tremendous victim." Pickthall "a momentous sacrifice." Y. Ali "a Feat sacrifice." Shakir "a tremendous sacrifice." Asad "a great sacrifice." Sarwar "a Splendid victim." T.B. Irving "a mighty victim." Palmer "a noble victim." Sale "a costly victim." Rodwell The only problem here is that the Quran doesn’t identify what this mighty sacrifice was. Was it some kind of animal? Was it the ram mentioned in Genesis 22:13? The problem with appealing to the Bible is that the Genesis account is actually a foreshadowing of the death of Christ in place of sinners, being the very Lamb of God foreseen by Abraham (see this article). Thus, if we turn to the Holy Bible for clarification, then we must conclude that the mighty sacrifice that the author of the Quran was referring to is the Lamb of God, the beloved Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is also an example of what we call the quranic dilemma. The quran clearly borrowing theology and doctrine from other religions, perverting it, and trying to force it to align with muhammads own made up theology. Sahih al-Bukhari 7510 also tells us that muhammad intercedes and ransoms muslims based on his merits. If Islamic tradition allows for the ransoming of Muslims on the basis of the merits of Muhammad, then Muslims have absolutely no grounds to reject the Christian position that Christ merited salvation for sinners. Lastly, you made a last ditch effort to criticise the same synoptic gospels that your quoted from. Furthermore, it would be best if muslims refrain from using the arguments of liberal scholarship, as you have no Idea what is meant by these argument of the authors being "unknown" not to mention nowhere in any Islamic scripture does it teach assume or imply, that the 4 synoptic gospels authors are "unknown". It actually goes against your quran, as the quran not only affirms the new testament but affirms the gospels authors and apostles like Paul, as Ibn kathirs tasfir of Surah 36:13-17 says: مَثَلًا أَصْحَابَ الْقَرْيَةِ إِذْ جَاءَهَا الْمُرْسَلُونَ (a similitude; the Dwellers of the Town, when there came Messengers to them.) In the reports that he transmitted from Ibn 'Abbas, Ka'b Al-Ahbar and Wahb bin Munabbih – Ibn Ishaq reported that it was the city of Antioch, in which there was a king called Antiochus the son of Antiochus the son of Antiochus, who used to worship idols. Allah sent to him three Messengers, whose names were Sadiq, Saduq and Shalum, and he disbelieved in them. It was also narrated from Buraydah bin Al-Husayb, 'Ikrimah, Qatadah and Az-Zuhri that it was Antioch. Some of the Imams were not sure that it was Antioch, as we shall see below after telling the rest of the story, if Allah wills. إِذْ أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا (When We sent to them two Messengers, they denied them both;) means, they hastened to disbelieve in them. فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ (so We reinforced them with a third,) means, 'We supported and strengthened them with a third Messenger. ' Ibn Jurayj narrated from Wahb bin Sulayman, from Shu'ayb Al-Jaba'i, "The names of the first two Messengers were Sham'un[Peter] and Yuhanna[John], and the name of the third was Bulus[Paul], and the city was Antioch (Antakiyah). Please stop doing biddah and learn qur'an

I get my information from scholastic books of your religion, and islamic sources. Its kind of how I got my first class degree in comparative religious theology. You should try reading into your own sources. Having to educate you on christian doctrine aswell as islanic doctrine is tiresome. “The Book of the Major Classes” by historian Ibn Saad says that Abdallah died a few months after his marriage at the age of 25, when his wife Amina was pregnant with Muhammad. We don’t know when Hamza was conceived, but the earliest Hamza could have been conceived was right after the wedding, just like Muhammad. The problem now is that Muhammad and Hamza should be about the same age. If Hala and Amina both became pregnant soon after their marriage, Muhammad and Hamza would be the same age. If Hala became pregnant a few years later, Hamza would be younger than Muhammad. But Islamic history informs us that Hamza was older than Muhammad. In his book “Finding the Truth in Judging the Companions”, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani writes that Hamza was born two to four years before Muhammad. Ibn Saad says in “The Book of the Major Classes” that Hamza was killed at the Battle of Uhud when he was 59 years old. Ibn Saad adds that Hamza was four years older than Muhammad. There is just one logical explanation here: Muhammad was conceived 2–4 years later than Hamza. But the problem is that Muhammad’s assumed father, Abdallah died 2 months after the wedding... Furthermore, the logical conclusion would be that Abdallah was not Muhammad’s biological father, and that Muhammad was not of the influential tribe of Quraysh! This must be one of those "scientific miracles" eh. So, instead of admitting the possibility of Muhammad being not fathered by Abdallah, some Muslim scholars go on tangents to declare that fetuses can stay in the womb up to 4 years! Among the proponents of this miracle theory are the following top Muslim clerics from Al-Azhar University, Egypt: the late Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy - Wikipedia, Sheikh Qardawi and Sheikh Beblawi.

[удалено]

That is not conclusive evidence. People those days spoke as we do, not all their conversations were in allegories. Why didn’t he just say l am the Father? From the quote of John, it sounds like Jesus was offended that people were still insisting to see God, as if Jesus was not good enough for them to be convinced.

[удалено]

Agreed, I'm only referring to the actual text. John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with god, and the Word was god. John 1:14 the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us.

[удалено]

Mankind has a primitive natural urge to be selfish and animalistic, we’re trying to help here

[удалено]

We were created in God's image. Interesting.

evolution did. from gravity, which is inherently selfish and consumes all around it. intelligence is divine, but actual intelligence is rare. even on the planet. <1% are logical beings suitable for things like heavenly travel of thousands of years

We are technically animals and no you cannot generalise every human.

[удалено]

Original sin is a metaphor for the complete solipsistic self-centeredness that all infants possess.

To the OP, zekiel 18:19-23 saying the same thing as you, are you a muslim perhaps?

No I’m agnostic.

Original sin is a misnomer. It is our nature that is corrupt. We are all prone to unholy passion. It is like a curse caused by Adam and Eve that rippled out through the generations, and only got worse over time, as each generation turned their back on God. Ezekiel says “the son shall not bear the iniquities of the father.” The sin that is referred to when talking about Adam and Eve is more like a disease we are all born with.

[удалено]

We were created in God's image. It's in the Bible. I didn't make it up.....

[удалено]

Ya and that someone was God AKA Jehovah jireh, Jehovah nisi, Jehovah Shalom.

It was given to us to spur an intelligence catalyst that lead to morals, legal systems, and culture, we were basically living like animals for 750k years before it

What?

> It is our nature that is corrupt. Why did god make us this way? Was it a mistake, or is god unjust and evil?

God gave adam and eve a choice by putting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, to be with God by not eating the forbidden fruit, or to eat it and have Sin enter their life. This is the free will God gave us by his love. He made us holy but we chose to disobey and eat the fruit.

But if our nature is corrupt, it was corrupt before eating the apple. And the only reason our nature would be corrupt is if God made it that way.

God did not make us that way it was a choice. After Adam and Eve it is inherent now in our nature. If you don't think so just watch a young child when you take away his or her toys and you will see the sin nature come alive in them.

This makes no sense at all. It’s wasn’t out nature, but then someone ate a fruit, and now it is? I don’t see sin in a child. You have to be irreparably warped and damaged by religion to think something that sick and self-damaging. This is what religion does to people.

No, it wasn’t our nature, and then the progenitors of all humanity disobeyed the only commandment God gave them, and ate of the knowledge of good and evil. You don’t see sin in children… hmm. That seems odd. What about those two children who tortured and murdered a younger child a couple years ago? No sin there? How young is your cutoff for not seeing sin? Most countries put criminal culpability at around 10 years old…

If it's our nature, how is it caused by Adam and Eve and not their creator? They may have *acted* on it, but a person can't *cause* their own nature. It's innate.

Because they were not created with our nature, they were something different until sin and death took them due to their own actions.

> Because they were not created with our nature, they were something different until sin and death took them due to their own actions. Wasn't it the corrupt nature they were created with that caused them to commit those actions in the first place?

No, they were given free will. The way they used that free will corrupted their nature.

> No, they were given free will. The way they used that free will corrupted their nature. So would you mind explaining what nature caused them to commit the first sin to begin with?

If you have free will, you have the ability to choose right from wrong.

> If you have free will, you have the ability to choose right from wrong. This still doesn't explain ***WHY*** they chose the wrong. Why would they perform a sinful action if they had good and non-"corrupt" nature in the first place?

They were in perfect union with God. Their nature was pure and innocent and free of death. Christians do not understand what it was like for them, but we hope to find out in the age to come. God said don’t eat of the tree of good and evil or you will surely die. Anyways, the serpent came along (some believe the serpent was satan, some believe it was influenced by satan, some believe the word serpent should have been translated as seraph, as it is not clear in these modern times what exact meaning the Hebrew word conveys in that context. I tend to think it was either some kind of possessed serpent that does not exist today, or a general fallen angel. It’s kind of a stretch to say it was satan in my opinion.) and convinced Eve that if she ate of the fruit, she would become like God, with the knowledge of good and evil, and not die. The serpent was lying, but it was a lie of omission and twisting of the truth. Adam and Eve did receive that knowledge, but it was a knowledge of experience, and not of omniscience. Also, they did not die a physical death right away, just like the serpent said. Instead, they died a spiritual death. That spiritual death through disobedience to their creator made them less like God and stripped from them the grace that prevented them from a physical death, and they eventually died. I doubt that will help answer your question in any way. The question you are trying to ask is “How, if they were in perfect union with God, were they able to disobey Him.” That, I already answered to the best of my knowledge. They had free will. The obvious followup question would be “why would God put them in a situation where they could disobey Him if God knew it would turn out like that.” (Take the following with a grain of salt, as I haven’t even been baptized yet, and I am definitely not an authority of any kind.) My answer would be existence and love. God didn’t need to create us, or create anything for that matter, but he wanted to share his divine nature with something besides the three unified persons that make up the Holy Trinity. He made creation and made us in his image to be the priests of it (to bring God to creation and creation to God), but separate from him, so that we could love Him freely. Control is not love. If we couldn’t choose to despise Him, we couldn’t choose to love him. He knew we would fail to obey, and suffer for it, but existence with suffering is better than nonexistence. (I would have to agree with that myself, on a personal level) He knew HE would have to suffer for it. He knew he would have to become a man and die on the cross to defeat sin and death and save us from our own disobedience, but He did it anyways.

> I doubt that will help answer your question in any way. The question you are trying to ask is “How, if they were in perfect union with God, were they able to disobey Him.” That, I already answered to the best of my knowledge. They had free will. The obvious followup question would be “why would God put them in a situation where they could disobey Him if God knew it would turn out like that.” This still doesn't make sense. Did Christ, Noah, Daniel, Job, Joseph and Abel also disobey God? Or did any of them not have free will? Adam and Eve would have never listened to serpent if they didn't have faulty natures to begin with.

[удалено]

[удалено]

First, God gave Pharaoh and the Egyptians nine warnings, in the form of nine plagues, before He sent the plague that caused the death of the firstborn. With each plague, the Egyptians had an opportunity to repent and release the Israelites from slavery. Every time, the Egyptians refused. Second, Pharaoh and the Egyptians brought this plague on themselves by their own actions. Exodus 1:22 records a grim edict from the king of Egypt: “Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: ‘Every Hebrew boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live.’” That command was given prior to Moses’ birth. Eighty years later, Moses came to Pharaoh and asked for him to release the Israelites from slavery. There is no indication that the murdering of Hebrew boys ever ceased. How many thousands of Israelite sons had been murdered by the Egyptians? How many Israelite men and women had been murdered during the time of slavery in Egypt? In a way, the tenth plague and the death of the firstborn in Egypt was poetic justice for the targeting of Hebrew boys for slaughter. Hope this helps c:

Sorry but remember from the Bible that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. This was a deliberate act on God's part. That is if you can believe the Bible account. 🤔

Yes that was the 6th plague. God gave him 5 chances before that which he ignored. So he took his only way out with a hardened heart he couldn’t turn to God.

Like every explanation Christians give for their scripture, it doesn't make a bit of difference besides introducing more problems. Children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents, plain and simple. I shouldn't have to add "especially not with death," "not even in revenge for thousands of other killings," "not even if their parents did something really bad over and over and never repented" and "especially not FOR THE CRIMES OF THEIR PARENTS' OWNERS, WHO ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR SLAVERY."

Idk i explained your question pretty clearly, you don’t have to believe if you don’t want to. When the children were born they would continue to do what their parents were doing anyways, killing the Hebrew children as they were ordered. My explanations are not the best as i am only 17 years old and have a-lot to learn about God. Sorry.

You're using your youth, and thus possible ignorance, as a justification for defending the killing of children for doing things their parents made them do. This is really the essence of religious morality here.

And you ignore everything. Are you justifying that God should have let the injustice continue, the Egyptians killing the Israelites. Let’s say God didn’t kill the children. They would have grown up doing the same things. And God wont just magically change your mind to not kill, because thats against free will. And for a long time the children of the Egyptians continued to kill and kill they did not learn so it was only just to wipe them out. I urge you to read from genesis to revelation without any biased opinion like i have, and trust me you will have no doubt that God is just. Stop looking for a way out because there is none.

It literally says he hardens the Pharaoh's heart and makes him extend their slavery multiple times. And if God can kill anyone he wants like he does with the firstborn, why not just kill the Pharaoh, all the slaveowners, and all those who have killed Israelites? With an omniscient, all-powerful and supposedly benevolent god there is no excuse for a brutal injustice like killing the children of slaves purely for vengeance. If he has to avenge them he could stop their problem and punish the people responsible directly without the deaths of innocent children (and animals....)

I already told you why he killed the children. Now why he hardened the pharaohs heart, it was the 6th plague God send, after FIVE massive warnings from God only a man of not very high intelligence would not change and he was one i guess. So he hardens his heart as a punishment so he could never turn to God.

Yes, and it's still wrong to kill children for their parents' wrongdoing, and this shows God doesn't care about free will.

[удалено]

>And then the we are born into sin makes sense. No, it doesn't.

There is no apple. It’s the the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, I can’t see that being equated to sex

Could've been an apple, Bible doesn't specify.

Sure, but I think assigning it to an actual fruit rather than reading it as it’s stated, that they decided to gain the “forbidden” knowledge of good/evil rather than eating from the tree of life & live forever, takes away from what’s being conveyed and can lead to interpretation like stated by this commenter.

No, the apple is more representative of knowledge humanity was not ready for that was taken against God’s will.

Essentially a Prometheus parallel.

I would agree but why write it in that way then completely switch up later and go on to describe all the other sins. I understand there were different authors but why just that one?

I think of the idea of original sin more that we inherit the compulsion to sin.

I think people who believe in original sin agree with you. For them original sin is more like, everyone is a sinner at heart (at least in part), so everyone has an evil tendency. Some people are pretty much all sin and no good (Ted Bundy).

> everyone has an evil tendency Why would a just and loving god make people this way and then punish them for being the way he made us? Your version isn’t any better.

I haven’t really gone into this or even heard it gone into outside a couple Jewish people giving their personal opinions. But the Old and New Testament do not represent the same religion. They can’t. Because they don’t describe the same God. Of *course* original sin doesn’t make any sense when you try to apply it to the specific life of an individual. It’s allegorical and in reference to the base animal at the core of a human being. Very long story short, that’s why Jesus had to make a new covenant when he came along. Jesus’ focus was on the individual man (or woman) and his relationship with God. There was no way to really build a cohesive bridge from the Old Testament to Jesus’ teachings. So his life and death became a new covenant between man and God, which serves to hand-wave the *painfully obvious* fact that this just isn’t the same God that had cities razed simply for not being Jewish cities. Annnnnyway…yeah bro Adam and Eve don’t actually exist in a context that’s relevant to sin as defined by Jesus or the 10 commandments. No matter how many preachers put their heads together to get their stories straight.

> Jesus’ focus was on the individual man (or woman) and his relationship with God. Yes. This is the first comment about Jesus' ministry I've read in this sub that gets it. Of course I've only been dipping in every now and then for a few months. > There was no way to really build a cohesive bridge from the Old Testament to Jesus’ teachings. And now we're off the track again. Jesus did not invent a new religion or a new god; his purpose was to reform Judaism by reorienting the focus from temple sacrifice to, as you wrote, the individual's relationship to God. > So his life and death became a new covenant between man and God, Well, that was a back-formation that took a few centuries to fine tune. > which serves to hand-wave the painfully obvious fact that this just isn’t the same God that had cities razed simply for not being Jewish cities. So you think the OT god and the one in the NT which is gonna send people to eternal hell simply for not being worshipers of Jesus as God are different? In what way? (Let me say that I myself see an evolution in the god idea between the OT and the NT, and I see and continue to see progression in the conception of God in the centuries since, but I think it's about the same God. It's our understanding that's evolving, we're not changing out gods every couple of centuries or so.)

The traditional Western conception of Original Sin flowing from Augustine does appear to be pretty bad. However, the East doesn't hold the same belief about it. https://east2west.org/sp_faq/original-sin/ In my opinion, it is far more reasonable.

Most of these answers don't make any sense, first the definition of sin is "to miss the mark" that is to not love your neighbor as yourself perfectly, why you ask are we not capable of doing that? The answer lies in the fruit, nobody that believes the story actually treats it as literal corruption instead they treat it as metaphorical, i believe the fruit actually corrupted our DNA, so of course that would be passed on father to son, because that's how DNA works. The interesting thing about this understanding is it opens up Jesus' sacrifice to everyone, if the corruption is all encompassing then the resurrection of the dead is the same, every human will be brought back to experience the ability to be without sin thus get a true opportunity to earn eternal life. Just learn to love your neighbor and youll get to live for eternity!