If original sin is so important to understanding God's reason for creating the universe the way He did and understanding His intention for how we should live our lives, not to mention His reason sending His son, why isn't it in the Bible?

>>17764920 (OP)
You can convert to Islam or another religion that doesn't have the concept of original sin

>>17765049
I don't find the concept incoherent or unacceptable, I just wonder why it was not revealed to us. It seems too important to count on fallible humans to discover on their own

>>17764920 (OP)
What makes you think it's not in the bible?

>>17766029
It clearly isn't? There are some verses cited in favor of the idea that it exists but these are either out of context (all of the ones in Genesis for example) or highly ambiguous. Something as doctrinally fundamental and practically important as this should be have been mentioned

>>17767305
Romans 5:12-19

>>17765049
>you can convert to whatever you like and believe whatever you like

How about we figure out what is going on OBJECTIVELY instead?

>>17764920 (OP)
If you look at the Psalms, it's pretty clearly stated is Psalm 51, live 5

5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Stop believing jewish fairytales designed to keep in constant fear, guilt and not seeking the truth

>>17768020
What's going on objectively? There are certainly metaphysical forces that exist in the world. There is certainly a prime-mover behind these metaphysical forces. Either that prime-mover is benevolent and desires salvation for creation or not. If he desires salvation we should look to a religious figure which embodies benevolent salvation to a degree that is impossible for us. The most convincing historical figure concerned with benevolent salvation is Jesus, no one else really comes close in terms of just how foundational Jesus was for our universal understanding of these concepts.

The Book of Mormon is original-sin free
It is from Africa

>>17769034
>There are certainly metaphysical forces that exist in the world.
0 proof
>There is certainly a prime-mover behind these metaphysical forces.
or what?
>Either that prime-mover is benevolent and desires salvation for creation or not.
conspicuous anthropocentrism
>If he desires salvation
what if not?
>Jesus
ahistorical
in conclusion pretty weak so far

>>17767305
Next time read the bible