You don't unless you believe you do. There's no such thing.

There are several threads on Adam and Eve you should take a look at. Most recently:

• Is Adam and Eve a true story to begin with?
  
• Adam and Eve
  

I'd start there on those threads. You can't inherit something from a story that is not literal truth.

A similar question:

Why do I have to inherit my parents genes?

Because its a physical necessity, gene inheritance. Sin is a state of examination by faith driven dogma, only observed by those who comply with this dogma.

You know this to be true how?

Yes, science shows how we inherit our parents genes.

What a clever response.

What to be true?

It is? How do you mean please?
Thanks.

How do you know that the ability to sin/not to sin is not an inheritable trait?

You did ask.....................

My apologies for not being clear enough that I was not referring to genes.

Because The idea of a Sin does not describe physical properties at all. It is a metaphysical theory at best. Its a fraction of faith. Faith is constant because of consciousness. We all have it, but proving it is somehow responsible BECAUSE of Gene inheritance, is Stone age Rationalizing.

I'm not comparing it to the same physical matter as genes yet merely trying to use an analogy. If a soul as a non tangible object has "genes", one of those "genes" is sinful nature.

Do you mean that something like dark matter can be expressed through sin as an analogy? If so, I can see what your saying.

What is your conception of what Adam and Eves original sin was?

SEX. I wonder if that word appears, maybe I just said it to see if it would. I believe that the Bible, exclaims, that it is the knowlege of their union as opposed to the union being of full natural occurance. Hence, it was a sin of knowledge and not of the flesh. I think that the story in the Bible has Adam as a mere child of nature, while Eve is the extract of life within. Should their union have had occured as a result of their growth toward each other, rather than as depicted, the result would have been what the God had deemed.

We inherit this sin, not through the partaking of life but by being alive. It is the awareness that we may all make this sin if we are not made aware of it to begin with. Baptism is, so that parents are made aware that thier sin is their knowledge of themselves. Communion is, so that those who are in awareness of sin, may forworn us of our obligation and to complete our trust, conformation is, so that we are made aware of our obligation not to sin.

This all hangs on the proviso that you have belief in this. I am neither sure whether, communion or conformation occur first, so don't quote me on that one.

Yes it did appear.

I refuse to accept the Adam and Eve story as factual occurance and it makes for a rather weak argument if a metaphor.

To inherit the sin gene as click likes to use would be the equivalent to suffering the sentence of a crime your grandfather committed. It is absurd and ridiculous to place your life into such a mentality.

The ironic thing with him using passing genes as a metaphor is that you can't get the whole human race from two people, because the gene pool is not large enough.

To me the story is bronze age people struggling to explain where human existence came from. Lacking all knowledge of biology and evolution they grasped at straws and came up with a story that has been debunked. It takes a back seat now as a metaphor but even that is weak to say the least.

[SIZE="3"]Why should a reasonably educated person interpret any of the Bible's creation story literally? It is absolutely clear this story descends from ancient tribal culture traditions, and can therefore only be understood today in that context. The literally religious may disagree, but humanity has learned enough to justify our quickly labeling that sort of thinking as nonsense and/or deluded in order to allow us to move on to the meaningful discussions a philosophy forum should exemplify.

Today we react to religious claims about the Bible from people who are treating all facets of that collection of books the same. But each book of the Bible represents a distinct period of history, a distinct set of influences behind it, a distinct mind's attempt to record or philosophize something . . . all of which is crucial to our understanding of what we read. There are in the Torah, for example, known redactions believed to have been "adjustments" by priests to (rather self-servingly) emphasize the importance of the priesthood: Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Each of the Gospels too reflect the priorities and beliefs and circumstances of the authors; Mark's views are very different from John's because they are two different people living in two different times in two different Christian communities. How can we ignore the environmental conditions and personalities of those authors when we interpret their words?

Since we know the Adam and Eve story originated in olden Semitic tribal life, then ancient Semitic religious beliefs and practices are a good place to look for where and why the Adam and Eve story originated. This Wikipedia short article has a lot of good references one can follow for study: Ancient Semitic religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see, it is highly likely the tribal cultures interacted extensively in trade and war, and so also were exposed to the various explanations for our existence. The Akkadians and other Semitic peoples who later rose to power in Mesopotamia adopted many parts of Sumerian culture, mythology, and religion, and this in turn shaped thinking and storytelling in the region for thousands of years. That means much of what was to become the early religion of Israel was almost certainly influenced by all their experiences with larger Middle Eastern cultures in the Black Sea area, Mesopotamia, Canaan, Egypt, etc.

On the other hand, whether or not the Adam and Eve story had its roots in some other culture's mythology (as does the great flood story) is not as important as the philosophical implications. Common sense tells us that early Jewish thinkers wanted a creation story that explained how a God can be so great, yet we humans can be such beasts (and that was especially true 3000 years ago). Somehow Adam and Eve had to have brought it on themselves, the early philosophers decided, and so we have original sin. Of course, that story has now been incorporated into grand theological themes which renders it virtually nonsense. As you yourself seem to say, the idea makes little sense when considered in light of all we know about reality and ourselves. But we don't have to read the great literature of the Bible so superficially.

One of the most interesting practices found in Judaism is that of extracting every bit of insight and wisdom from a story. If I were to interpret in that spirit and so try to find a way to have the story make sense, I would say that being born into a body has consequences. While a body seems to give the advantage of individualizing us, plus the brain seems to teach us how to think, we also are subject to selfishness (the dark side of individuating?) and the animal drives of the body . . . not a bad definition for "sin."

If the ancients were trying to provide an explanation for what's behind our selfish and animalistic drives, the Adam and Eve story seems a pretty good one to take lessons from. Interpreting from their cosmology: God gave us a temporary physical life, but it has a dark side that if blindly followed will produce a selfish, indulgent brute (a "sinner"); avoid the serpent in us, and follow the deeper nature, the "image of God" we all are inside, and we can then be part of God instead of part of the beast.[/SIZE]

[/SIZE]Seriously? "great literature of the bible..." It is far from being "great literature". It is horribly compiled, the context is so self canceling, the characters are utterly shallow and often times contradictory even in their own personality. If the hype were taken off it as a religious book, it would definitely not receive the best sellers list. The only reason it makes it on the list is because for every new hotel that opens, they buy one for ever room. It is not something that is widely consumed as a great read. It is often a chore to read from cover to cover and I will bet that a huge majority of Christians have actually never read it from cover to cover. They think going to church counts as reading the bible.

The adam and eve story has lots of holes. To actually find a logical moral or teaching is far fetched. What's it saying other than obey or be casted out into death. Would it need to be written in such a way to make that message? No.

On a side note, I'm not sure how you can consider selfishness as the pit of human downfall. It is by our very existence that we maintain some shred of selfishness to survive. The only place you find a completly and utterly selfless person is a grave. So it is unfair to mark selfishiness as an evil. It is a means, but just how strongly the resolve for self importance is where the trouble lurks. Just like money, it can be used for harming but it can also be used for some good. But people are quick to deem all money evil because it can be used for bad intentions. All things are like this, including religion, so should we also say that religion is just another evil characteristic of humanity? As much as I would like to say yes, it would be inaccurate and similarly with deeming selfishness as the fall of humanity.