Why does Tucker Carlson keep saying that Christianity teaches children don’t inherit the sins of their ancestors? How does he make sense of Original Sin or the need to accept Jesus Christ to be saved, if Sin isn’t inherited? This is basic Christianity; that Christian Pastors, Priests, and so many Christians on internet forums have repeated ad nauseum when I was growing up. What else was meant by “Jesus Christ died for your sins” if sins aren’t inherited from ancestors within Christian theology?

I tweeted him this directly and never got a response: How does your belief that Christianity doesn’t impose sins on children for the actions of parents make sense? How is that plausible with the concept of Original Sin or the need to accept Jesus to be saved, if Sin isn’t inherited? Did Jesus die for your sins or not?

I understand that as an Episcopalian, Tucker Carlson’s beliefs on Original Sin being a tendency to sin that was inherited within nature is different from the traditional and historic Christian theological belief that sin is inherited from Adam and Eve’s fall from the Garden of Eden for eating the fruit of knowledge, but that doesn’t give him the right to claim Eastern faiths are “different” by quoting a Buddhist teaching and claiming this Buddhist proverb is the reason that Christianity is superior to non-specified and purposefully vague “Eastern Faiths” that he fails to elaborate upon:

Two instances of Tucker’s Repeated Claims:

Abrahamic Faith Teaching in Judaism:

What Christianity Added to this teaching:

Dharmic Teaching of Buddhism:

Moreover, this is extremely bizarre: this man is way older than me, he identifies as a Christian, and he doesn’t understand the traditional views of Original Sin, the Fall of Adam and Eve, and the inherited sins of humanity from the Bible itself? If he wanted to say that his specific branch of Christianity is what he’s advocating for, then he’s free to do that, but what is he talking about by claiming that Christianity doesn’t teach that the sins of the children aren’t inherited from the parents? How on earth could Adam and Eve have caused all of humanity to inherit their sins within the Christian worldview then? Another problematic claim: He thinks Christianity teaches personal responsibility, but how can Jesus Christ take your sins away, if you are solely responsible for your sins? What else was meant from “Jesus died for your sins” ad nauseum in the early and mid-2000s by so many Christians online, if Jesus Christ doesn’t take your sins – and thus your personal responsibility – away? Were all those perpetually online Christians preaching the gospel falsely to non-Christians like me? Were all their explanations to my questions false? Are all the blogs, books, and theological arguments in debates against New Atheists from Christian Priests and Pastors that I read and watched, then false testimony? Just as noteworthy: Atonement in the traditional sense of Christian theology only meant that you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, it didn’t mean that you apologize for the harm that you do to other people. In other words, it is not a teaching of non-violence. The only explicitly non-violent teaching in Christianity originates from Judaism and Judaism’s “Thou Shalt Not Murder” is obviously not unique to Christianity. Moreover, what those priests and pastors of Christianity said is clearly mentioned in the Bible itself. The fuller context of John 3: 12-22:

As significantly, the Golden Rule is not a teaching of peace, because it means that if someone commits violence against you, then you have the right to inflict violence upon them as a form of reciprocity; it’s also not originated by Jesus Christ, the original teaching is from the annals of Confucius and moreover, the reciprocity principle is found to exist in all human societies including throughout history, according to modern psychology studies.

I’m genuinely confused how or why he believes what he does about Christianity, because it reads like he’s never listened to any Christian Priest or Pastor outside the Episcopalian Church or understands the traditional Christian message. I think this is honestly the limits of the Abrahamic faith tradition, if they “openly interpret” their religion to the point that they’re now claiming that teachings from the Dharmic faith tradition of Buddhism is somehow Christian in opposition to vaguely ill-defined “Eastern Understanding” as Tucker put it.