How does Islam not have original sin?

[Samof94]

How does Islam function as a missionary religion without original sin as a concept? By that, I mean, how do they get people to convert to Islam without that concept? Obviously, they claim they have a perfect book as one of their tricks.

[Хahar 🤔]

I don't really know how to answer this question. It functions normally, I guess? You'll have to elaborate on what you mean.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What role does original sin have in Christianity? That might explain why Islam doesn't have it, i.e. the role original sin has in Christianity is filled in by other, different things.

[sting in the rafters]

What role does original sin have in Christianity? That might explain why Islam doesn't have it, i.e. the role original sin has in Christianity is filled in by other, different things.

Indeed. Though it follows if original sin is a necessary concept to explain why Christ dying for sins was necessary, what presuppositions play a similar role in why it is important to accept Muhammad as a prophet?

[Blue3]

Original sin isn't necessary for Christianity.

And Muslims believe Adam and Eve repented, and that God forgave them.

Jesus is the Messiah in Islam, born of the Virgin Mary even more explicitly, who will come back at the end of the world. They just believe Jesus is all these things without believing he's resurrected or divine.

Mary is mentioned more in the Qur'an than the Bible.

Jesus is mentioned more in the Qur'an than Mohammed.

Moses is the human mentioned most in the Qur'an.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Due to fact all the prophets were sinless, Moses Allah and Christ were sinless, if they can born without sin, so can the rest of us.

But, everyone knows that we are born into sin or Karma and your death the repayment for that sin

Astral plane is interpreted as Purgatory whether it's Heaven or not it's your interpretation of it and that is your ending unless there is a Rapture, but it can be Reincarnation, but it's very hard to prove

Many of these religions perfected Odin, THE UNDERWORLD IS PURGUTORY, BUT WE JUST CALL THE DIVINE INSTEAD OF MANY GODS

Loki is Trickster Satan and Odin and Thor are Christ the God of Thunder

They call Asgardian as Heaven

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Why bring Norse Mythology into this?

[The Mikado]

Jesus is mentioned more in the Qur'an than Mohammed.

This is kind of cheating because every single Surah is supposed to be a transcription of Muhammad talking.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Original sin isn't necessary for Christianity.

This is the correct answer.

(At least, to believe in original sin would require oneself to take a literal, rather than allegorical, interpretation of Genesis.)

[Blue3]

Jesus is mentioned more in the Qur'an than Mohammed.

This is kind of cheating because every single Surah is supposed to be a transcription of Muhammad talking.

No, it's supposed to be a message of God sent to Mohammed. Not Mohamed's voice.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The doctrine of original sin is somewhat correlated, but not dependent upon, the doctrine of primarily blaming Eve for the fall. However, the Qur'an is clear the fault was equally that of Adam and his wife. (The name Eve is not used in the Qur'an.)

[Mopsus]

Original sin isn't necessary for Christianity.

This is the correct answer.

(At least, to believe in original sin would require oneself to take a literal, rather than allegorical, interpretation of Genesis.)

I don't see how either of these positions are tenable. Scripture is clear that as sin and death came into the world through one man, so did grace and immortal life come into the world through another. If human nature isn't faulty, what did Jesus come to redeem us from? Even if you take an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, it explains the state of human nature more perfectly than any other myth. To quote Chesterton (I don't completely agree with this, but I still think it's funny), Original Sin "is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved".

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Original sin isn't necessary for Christianity.

This is the correct answer.

(At least, to believe in original sin would require oneself to take a literal, rather than allegorical, interpretation of Genesis.)

I don't see how either of these positions are tenable. Scripture is clear that as sin and death came into the world through one man, so did grace and immortal life come into the world through another. If human nature isn't faulty, what did Jesus come to redeem us from? Even if you take an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, it explains the state of human nature more perfectly than any other myth. To quote Chesterton (I don't completely agree with this, but I still think it's funny), Original Sin "is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved".

To take Genesis literally would require one to believe that mankind literally started with two human beings, one from dust and the other of the rib from the man who came from dust, thus negating the evolutionary history of homosapiens. Perhaps I should have clarified that two people eating a fruit (or rather, "the Fall") is not a necessary precondition for man's sinful nature. It's faulty even as an allegory, because it implies there was ever a period where everything was paradise. The history of the natural world shows that couldn't have been the case.

[TJ in Oregon]

Original sin isn't necessary for Christianity.

This is the correct answer.

(At least, to believe in original sin would require oneself to take a literal, rather than allegorical, interpretation of Genesis.)

Not really, or at least not the creation part. Adam and Eve could be any number of common ancestors for all of humanity. Something of this sort is probably the most common Catholic position.

[Mr. Smith]

'Cuz Original Sin is a weirdo apostate thing Catholics and Protestants [not sure about Orthodox on this] adopted for some reason.

We Mormons [real Christans btw, not BRTDs psuedo ones] don't need it. Man is accountable for his own sins alone, not anyone else's.

[Mopsus]

Original sin isn't necessary for Christianity.

This is the correct answer.

(At least, to believe in original sin would require oneself to take a literal, rather than allegorical, interpretation of Genesis.)

I don't see how either of these positions are tenable. Scripture is clear that as sin and death came into the world through one man, so did grace and immortal life come into the world through another. If human nature isn't faulty, what did Jesus come to redeem us from? Even if you take an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, it explains the state of human nature more perfectly than any other myth. To quote Chesterton (I don't completely agree with this, but I still think it's funny), Original Sin "is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved".

To take Genesis literally would require one to believe that mankind literally started with two human beings, one from dust and the other of the rib from the man who came from dust, thus negating the evolutionary history of homosapiens. Perhaps I should have clarified that two people eating a fruit (or rather, "the Fall") is not a necessary precondition for man's sinful nature. It's faulty even as an allegory, because it implies there was ever a period where everything was paradise. The history of the natural world shows that couldn't have been the case.

Taken allegorically, The Fall tells us that it is man's natural state to be close to God, but we through our own choices separate ourselves from him. Out of curiosity, how do you treat the Garden of Eden story? Do you simply see it as primitive universe-building, which we can safely dispose of now?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Original sin isn't necessary for Christianity.

This is the correct answer.

(At least, to believe in original sin would require oneself to take a literal, rather than allegorical, interpretation of Genesis.)

I don't see how either of these positions are tenable. Scripture is clear that as sin and death came into the world through one man, so did grace and immortal life come into the world through another. If human nature isn't faulty, what did Jesus come to redeem us from? Even if you take an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, it explains the state of human nature more perfectly than any other myth. To quote Chesterton (I don't completely agree with this, but I still think it's funny), Original Sin "is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved".

To take Genesis literally would require one to believe that mankind literally started with two human beings, one from dust and the other of the rib from the man who came from dust, thus negating the evolutionary history of homosapiens. Perhaps I should have clarified that two people eating a fruit (or rather, "the Fall") is not a necessary precondition for man's sinful nature. It's faulty even as an allegory, because it implies there was ever a period where everything was paradise. The history of the natural world shows that couldn't have been the case.

Taken allegorically, The Fall tells us that it is man's natural state to be close to God, but we through our own choices separate ourselves from him. Out of curiosity, how do you treat the Garden of Eden story? Do you simply see it as primitive universe-building, which we can safely dispose of now?

I'm not quite sure what "primitive universe-building" is, but, maybe? It's very possible I've been looking at it from the wrong angle all this time, because the notion of a singular event being responsible for everything from sin to body consciousness to pain in childbirth never made much sense to me. Christ, the "Last Adam", obviously did not die for the sins of just one man or one woman.

By the same token, Satan's very presence implies that evil, and by extension sin, was always there. That being the case, the Christus Victor model, I think, better explains atonement than alternatives. But that's another question.