To summarize, this paper presents some of the possible logical argument concerning the idea of the "Original Sin" as the most important belief in Christianity on which the beliefs like crucifixion and salvation have been built. We conclude by summarizing all the logical possibilities in regard to Christian beliefs around the idea of "The Original Sin":
Based on the three assumptions mentioned above, we will examine the Christians' belief regarding the idea of the "Original Sin", the Crucifixion of Christ (PBUH) and putting Satan in charge of taking his soul. Therefore, three arguments will be advanced to account for these claims.
- The first position assumes that God does what ever He wants with no wisdom, rationality or justice. Just like what the determinists say.
- The second position assumes that God performs justice which is required of people (using people's standards); as it is the claim of the fatalists.
- The third position assumes that God is All Just and He is free from committing all forms of injustice. However, His justice differs from that of His creation.
So, If they die with no sin for which they deserve to be punished, how can they be punished after they die for their father's sin even if we assume that he (Adam) had died insisting on his sin, although this is a false assumption. And if we also make another false assumption that the prophets have sins for which they deserve to be punished after death and the empowerment of Satan is to punish them, then people who are not prophets and came after Christ deserve punishment also. How can we accept justice that poses an illogical double standard by allowing the punishment of prophets and not punishing those who are subordinate to them.
- If we follow the first assumption, then God has the right to give Satan power over the children of Adam and persecute them all without any sin that they might have committed. So, there is no need to scheme a pretext for Satan.
- If we take the second assumption into consideration, we know if one realizes that one of his servants had commanded another person to commit a sin that the master dislikes, it would be just for him to persecute both the one who commanded and the one who obeyed. It would not be just to empower the unjust (the commanding one) to punish the commanded one. It is not just either to empower the unjust commander to transgress against the offspring of the commanded one who did not participate in their father's sin. If we say that he has the right to enslave them because their father had obeyed him, then he should have the right to hold the ancestors and the offspring accountable. Therefore, it is not right to withdraw his right by deceiving him. If he has the right to hold them responsible for their father's sins, then he is free to punish them both, the forefathers and the offspring.
If it is said that after Satan had taken the human side of Jesus (PBUH), he was then prevented from taking Adam's progeny thereafter. If it were so, this sin of Satan would be the least of all his sins, because he had not know that he (Jesus (PBUH), according to the Christian belief, was representing the human side of God. If Satan had been given the permission to enslave the offspring of a man then enslaved one, thinking that he was a man but was not, then this mistake would not prevent him from enslaving the rest. Thus, if Satan mistakenly took Jesus (PBUH) as a son of man, this should not prevent him from taking the rest.
- The third assumption is that God' Justice is not like that of His creatures', but rather it is a characteristic of His justice in that He does not lessen the merits of anyone and does not punish anybody but for what he or she has committed. Therefore, it is not right for God to punish the children of Adam for their father's sin. It is also not right for God to punish the prophets who have no sin, since all the prophets are infallible and innocent.
The idea of crucifixion as attributed to the theme of the "Original Sin" is not incompatible with only human intellect and understanding of justice, but also is contradictory to the teachings of the Bible itself. Ezekiel (18:20) reads: " The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him".
My dear reader! After trying to explain the falsity of the idea of "the Original Sin" by using both logical arguments and supportive evidence from the Bible (the Christian Holy Book); there is no doubt that such an idea was not preached by Jesus Christ (PBUH) since it contradicts with the teachings he brought as it is clearly illustrated in the quote from Ezekiel above. If so, then ...
Where did the idea of The Original Sin come from?
 Allah says in the Holy Qur'an:� Say shall I seek for (my) Lord other than Allah. When He is the Cherisher of all things? Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself: no bearer of burdened can bear the burden of another, your return in the end is towards Allah: He will tell you the truth of the things wherein you disputes� (6:164).