Would you accept sins from parents to be passed to their children?
Absolutely not
Quran, Chapter 6: AL-ANAAM (CATTLE) - Juz' 8, Verse 165
"every soul earns only to its account, no soul shall bear another's burden"
هیچ کس ، عمل ( بدی ) جز به زیان خودش ، انجام نمی دهد و هیچ گنهکاری گناه دیگری را متحمّل نمی شود
وَلاَ تَكْسِبُ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ إِلاَّ عَلَيْهَا وَلاَ تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَى
No, God does not arbitrarily impose your sin on your children. Accordingly, sin does not get passed to the next generation. But the sins of parents can affect their descendants. Children will follow in the footsteps of their parents in (good or bad) habits, sins, behaviors, etc. In such cases the pattern of sin becomes repetitive, and the effects of sin continue.
In my opinion "Sin" means, very far and bottom of my list to consider to think about it.
By thinking about it I can't change any - I can't change it means - no need to think about it by spending my precious time.
I have my presence in my hand - enjoying each and every minute and practised not to allow any external environment/circumstances (like meeting deadline, missing expected stuffs etc) to spoil my internal happiness.
Dear Vilemar
I think the biggest sin of any failure to comply with the rights of others, and second, that their children do not teach integrity to the future involves not guilty.
Dear Vilemar, Dr Murugesan, Mr Mahmoud,
Firstly, the answer is NO, No and No.
Spirit and soul theory says as under;
If I do 5 bad deeds, 10 good deeds; I will have to get fruits of 15 deeds (of 5 bad and 10 good deeds) not balance 5=(10-5) good deeds.
Means the doer is made to suffer or enjoy the fruits and not the other soul of whatever spirit-some.
Earthly or materialistic theory doesn't prevail on the other layer of the soul-journey.
Best wishes
A question that is difficult to answer, mainly because there are so many counter-arguments on both the sides. Before answering, I will keep my personal views on the topic aside so that I am able to see things more logically.
First, the concept of sin. The question is that is it the creation of god or the human mind? How can killing of human being be a sin and killing of animals and plants for food not be a sin? The counter argument is that the god made humans to 'rule the world' and other animals to his service. But, then why to tigers and bears kill humans? What kind of service is it? The arguments - counter-arguments may go on without any result. What may be said is that we are not sure if sins are determined by god or human beings? Or is it the nature that lays the rules for its sustenance and does the justice?
Second, whatever we do - sin or virtue - has an effect on our environment. It is not only the progeny, but the whole environment that responds through changes to our action. Then, why restrict it to the progeny alone and on what basis?
Third, I don't know about the historicity of Adam and Eve/ Manu and Satroopa or for that matter all the mythological characters that are believed to be first human beings. Even if I suppose that they were real, why did the god put the apple tree in the garden if he did not want them to eat? Why did he not want them to have knowledge? It is weird!
I feel that the whole concept of god and sin has been constructed in a really egocentric way!
Not sure why you're wondering about that, can you explain why you're asking this?
This being said - I don't see how anyone can be deemed guilty of trespasses or crimes committed by others, under circumstances and at a time where they could not influence or abet things in any way. Of course, under such reasoning a recurrence relationship would be logically inescapable, so we'd be then co-guilty of all of our forebears' trespasses. This would seem to me to be 'magical thinking' at its very worst.
There is even a mathematical demonstration of that. Make a simple statistics & spreading (propagation) kinetics calculation going back over time (about 200,000 years, when homo sapiens made its first estimated appearance on Earth) on the incidence of ... rape. The calculation shows that it is virtually certain that every single one of us has a rapist forebear at some point in time somewhere in his or her lineage. Now if you, weirdly enough, try to saddle people with the trespasses of their forebears, then we are all guilty of rape.
While I respect the creed of those who think that the original sin was that of Adam in Eden, but I do not believe that we " the descendants" have any responsibility for his "rebellious" act and I do believe that we have not inherited sin. Any wise grown up person is responsible for his/her sinful act. No court on earth will accept laying the blame on ancestral heredity for a crime committed today.
In some communities the sin pass from parents to children. But I think that the children should not bear the results of parents sin.
Sin is an inferential tag to behaviors. Of course consequences of some behaviors may transfer to the next generations.
I have been raised within the Orthodox Christian community (specifically Russian Orthodox), in which we were not indoctrinated with Catholic 'Original Sin' theology. Nonetheless, despite no longer identifying as Christian, I do not believe, nor can I support the ideal of original sin. I believe this same ideal is chiefly responsible for such hate filled doctrines as anti-antisemitism. How could one be responsible for a crime which predates their own existence?
I am not sure what the original sin of humans is from the scientific view point, and there is no reason why descendants will be associated with bad actions of their bearers or parents, as doing bad is not genetically contagious. If we make descendants wear coats of sins of their parents, then we are running out of people who are good and every person of today and the future is made a sinner which is not reasonable.
In my opinion, it would even be ungodly to think that the burden of the sin could be just like that, almost approximately conveyed to our sons and daughters... Maybe only in a way that someone already mentioned here - that sons and daughters learned (bad, sinful) living patterns from their fathers and mothers, and therefor, they bear their own sin already. God, if he punishes at all, can not in advance punish someone :) just for having genes from bad parents...
There is a beautiful poem... Israel poet, or philosopher, I think... Khalil Gibran... Goes like... "Your children are not your children... they are only sons and daughters of life, longing for itself"... Life cannot be that predictable, like in a "conveying sin" theory... Life is greater then that... God is greater than that.
J.
People believe that some of our behaviors have close relationship with our characteristics and some characteristics can be passed to children. If some of our behaviors conducted by deep rooted characteristics can be called “sins”, than there may be original sin.
But human is different from other animals, we are social higher animal and have the abilities of judgment, love, self controlling, corporation…; we have original love, the ability to decide our own behaviors, and to fight against our characteristics or “sins”.
I think sin is not original. If we assume it is original I would like to ask from where the first sin passed to Adam?
Accordingly, Sin happen either genetically or from the surrounding environment.
Dear all
During feudal times, Chinese emperors had the hereditary power, just for asserting their feudalism rule, they force a Feudal thought: Dragon born dragon, Phoenix born Phoenix, mouse only can has a mouse son who has an only ability of making a hole.
Today, we do not accept the thought. I think the society ought to offer the best possible good circumstance for every baby.
Dear H Chris Ransford,
I am not sure if you are familiar with the Bible. Two big schools, Tertulian amd Cyprian. They were from the third century B.C and they theorized that Adam and Eve's desobidience is the so called original sin. This sin was inherited by all humanity. Saint Augustine and John Calvin popularized that doctrine which is very much accepted today among Christians.
Hello Vilemar,
Is there original sin?
Original sin is a Christian belief / value, based in faith and not reason and is important to a lot of people. I agree with Mahmoud, "God does not arbitrarily impose parental sins onto children."
Would you accept sins from parents to be passed to their children?
As a parent, I know my daughter inherits genetics, behaviours, language, many of my values, humour, mannerisms, interests, and other traits. I would hope that I do not transfer my sins / poor behaviours in the process. If there is anything that I am guilty of, I do not believe that it should be passed onto anyone.
Daryn
Yes. The idea of original sin explains the corrupt nature of our world. All persons born into this world are born with original sin, then they must decide from there, their fate. This is no different from other nihilistic religions, such as Buddhism, where Buddha describes the world as an unsalvageable place of misery, pain and suffering. Within Christianity, suffering is due to sin, of which, original sin only marks that form of unavoidable corruption inhered upon birth...from there, one may increase their woes and tribulations many-fold, depending upon their actions and response to temptation from all corners of this world of corruption.
I dont know if i understood the question correct...sins or Original sins I dont know...but there are some thoughts in mind....
nature decides in which country we will be born(developed/ developing/ underdeveloped), in which family (poor/rich),what sex (M/F), what cast ....etc etc......we have no roal in deciding all these.....
One person works hard shape his carrier well earns money, respect etc and the other one spoils his life in drugs....definitely their children will get an entirely different atmosphere at home from the day one....one may even get HIV from their parents....
I feel a big fraction of our life is not in our hand......if it gives bad results....One may call it sin also....
Human nature has been changed as a result of the choices and actions of human beings. It change its own nature and also changes over time
http://individual.utoronto.ca/pking/articles/Damaged_Goods.pdf
Dear Vilemar. You have put a complex issue in which many components. Social, legal, medical, moral, ethical ....
A religious man thinks of original sin. Lawyer decides questions of responsibility for the mistakes of parents of children (for example, indemnity after the war). Doctors are trying to correct hereditary defects in children.
I believe you mean the likely ethical and moral aspects. In this regard, I am a supporter of religious beliefs on the issue. We must take the situation as there are, and no one to blame.
Yes, we should think about education, we should think about past and future. Then the future will be a good place for the past...
There is an interesting story in India:
Once upon a time a tribal young man living in a forest with his family becomes a ferocious roberrer and robs people to sustain his family. One day a scholar passing through the forest becomes his victim and a discussion follows. The scholar asks the young man why he was resorting to this kind of sinful act and the tribal youth replies that he has to take care of a large family. The scholar then enquires whether the members of his family are willing to share the results of his sin. The tribal replies in the affirmative. Both of them then go the tribal youth's home. The tribal youth then asks his parents, wife, children and other members whether they are willing to share his sins. To his shock and dismay everyone refuses to share the results of his sin and demands that it is his bounden duty to take care of their needs. The depressed youth requests the scholar to show him the right path. On the advice of the scholar, he does penance for a number of years. The tribal goes on to become a great sage and author of two great works in India.
What do we learn from this story?
Definitely not; there is no original sin. Yes, there are consequences that are passed on to our off-springs due to our sins.
Hinduism as the previous authors have said tells us that sins too are passed to their children, and so preaches to follow a pious life and avoid harming every other lives thriving on the earth. According to me, these doctrine of Hindu philosophy helped people exist peacefully, though I don't see them much anymore. It does preaches though that, a human being suffers more for his own Karma, both Good and Bad. And if the baggage of Sin is more , he gets entangled in the vicious circle of Birth and Rebirth till all his sins are washed off, and attains Nirvana or Moksha. However all other religion has different perspectives on the same.
Christianity quotes ,(Deuteronomy 5:9)--"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." However, at some point, Christianity again quotes, (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
Same seems to be the practicing doctrine in Islam and Judaism.
In North Korea, "sins" (meaning opposition to the regime) are deemed to contaminate the whole kin, and dissidents' children are put in camps.
In genetics acquired characters are inherited, in human communities: cultures, customs, traditions and properties are inherited. Inheritance appears to be a common factor for many traits. By extending this logic acquired "sins" may also be inherited at least partially. If we are born with the genes of our parents and inherit their property, are we not entitled to inherit their demerits?
Dr. Dyer
Our parents have given us life, love, affection, education and several other good things. When we have shared all the good things with them, I feel we should gladly share their sins as well. This is part of family bonding and love. Why should we shy away?
Hello Dr. Rao,
Your comment is an interesting re-direction and I agree with you although, I wasn't suggesting we shy away from anything. I believe that each generation adds something new to the family linage, genetically, behaviourally and so forth. We can not control which genes our children receive however, if we are aware of the positive or negative family behaviours that we have inherited then, we have some capacity to influence (theoretically) which trait gets passed on. If a parent notices their child copying behaviours that will hinder the child's life, do parents not have the responsibility to at least try to intervene? (This is not a political comment)
Daryn
Dear Renzo,
Barbara put it very clearly in this thread. And I will just post it here.
Barbara Sawicka · 40.81 · 9.76 · University of Life Sciences in Lublin
Original sin - in Christian theology is the first sin of Adam and Eve in paradise committed under the influence of Satan's temptation. It consisted lifted up with pride and presentation of disobedience to God through the consumption of the tree of knowledge of good and evil forbidden fruit. It also includes dismissal of the state of humanity from God, the state of sinfulness, the lack of original justice, holiness, which is a consequence of the fall of the first pair of married and inherited by all their descendants. Original sin is the cause of injury to human nature, involving particularly interested in weakening the ability of a clear knowledge of the truth and the weakness of the will, which sustains the breakdown between the desire for the good and the tendency toward moral evil. It passes from generation to generation - is passed child in the act of conception. According to Catholic doctrine, the only one preserved from original sin was Maria
Is there original sin? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_original_sin/2 [accessed Jun 19, 2015].
An important information that we would probably need before understanding how much capable Adam and Eve were for committing original sin? What was their probable age, mental status and mental age at the time when they committed the sin? We will find them guilty of committing sin only if they had their mental status and decision making capability developed completely as that of an adult human being.
Neither the practicing doctrine in Islam nor in Judaism has to do with an original sin which had repercussions "of inheritance" on the descendants. Neither one of these 2 religions has to do with the transition from Karma to Nirvana.
Original sin from a religious perspective. No id not believe. Being a hindu that i am believe in good karma and other aspects as preached and practiced.
From a legal perspective. Inheritance carries the cost of both good and the bad.
From ethical perspective. Parents do transfer the cost of sins committed to the child. Because the child pays for the sins committed. Here my definition of sin is bad parenting.
I believe child is a combination of genes of parents. By that logic the child carries further the deficiencies (if any) of the parent.
Sin is simply corruption. Original sin is two pronged: 1) the inheritance of corruption from ancestors, who have compounded misery for all future generations through destroying the world through sin, for example, destruction of the environment from greed, avarice, etc; 2) original sin is inhered by simply being in the world, for the stain of this world is so corrupt and imperfect.
I say, "Sin is simply corruption," but it is more than that, for it also implies a certain quality of consciousness or awareness. On the other hand, the world being so corrupt, any person born into this world must suffer the stain of sin, by simply being born!
Renzo,
Feel free to ask. The more you interact the better for me. If I were looking for fixed answers I would go to Google instead. It is much better to see how you understand it, than what others theorized in the past which does not make any argument valid by itself.
Good point dear @George. It reminds me of the following words said by Steve Jobs once: “Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life." He then concluded: "... No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet, death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it, and that is how it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It's life's change agent. ....”
Dear Vilemar,
Much annoying, but unfortunately it very often happens not only in Pardise lost.
For example sons of extravagant persons must always start from scratch.
It is very difficult to have famous examples because seldom sons of wicked persons can attain a positive fame. Perhaps the sector where this condition does not hold is in the field of entertainment.
Kind regards,
Marg
Hi Vilemar,
Yes. There is original sin. We can differentiate good from evil because our first parents Adam and Eve partook of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That's why we cover up, get sick, kill each other, lie and do all sins because the sin committed by our first parents still trail us.
We do not have a choice of whether to pass on sins to our children or not. It happens because even the Bible says we are born in sin and shaped in iniquity (Psalm 51:5)
Regards,
Joseph
what Ting Fa Margherita Chang said is agood thing in this issue
There are numerous religions that deny the concept of original sin --- say man is born good and that we need education to reform ourselves ... !
Original Sin is not a concept to explain: "why men toil." It is a condemnation of life and this world, for this concept defines life and the world to be misery and that alone. Consider Mani, circa 200 A.D, explained there are two rules to life: 1) get off the planet as soon as possible, 2) do not have children, for you would only bring another poor soul into a corrupt world to suffer and risk eternal damnation.
I'll also add that any attempt to whitewash this world and paint it something beautiful and wonderful...well, that's just happy-talk. Just consider the children being raped, murdered and enslaved by ISIS today! Think of all the lies and corruption from one government to the next. Examples abound! In fact, I dare anyone to claim goodness to exist in any institution or field, banks, churches, even Science is corrupt; moreover, not to recognize this fact is to reveal your blindness in a world of sin.
As the saying goes: "Ignorance is bliss."
Dear Vilemar,
I think, if a human being is a true believer, he won't doubt in Holy Scripture and will respect the feelings of all believers,all religions, and faith.
Sin is not a matter of faith or religion...it is a recognition of the third law of thermodynamics, Entropy, or: "that all things perish"--to quote Buddha.
The anonimous downvote exists. This is a fact. But we are not obliged to use it. There is no rule for that. So, if you three who decided to use of that right decided to tell me what is wrong so that I can fix my way or explain what I mean with that, I would appreciate it. If you do not want to identify yourself. This is not a problem either. Just open a yahoo, hotmail, gmail account with another name and please send me a message telling me what I need to do better. I am exposing my thoughts to have people who do not agree sayiing why. After that I will either change my thesis or find better arguments to maintain it. A downvote just lets me with the option to guess what you did not like and did not say why. My email is [email protected]. Thanks for your help. Instead of anemy you will have a anonimous friend forever.
A judgement is a decision, a discernment and action taken to form some equilibrium, hence, entropy is a force in the Universe. Values are relative. Whether or not you agree or like the decisions made by the Universe is immaterial. Right now, we are experiencing the sixth extinction period and Man is on the slate for destruction...you can feel anyway you like about it, but the decision has been made and the end is certain.
@Renzo -- It's always been the end...it's just that the time has finally come for Man to face it collectively.
@Vilemar -- Don't sweat down votes...who cares? I will say they are annoying, given the the spirit of debate and this forum is to speak out as to what you think and to either present an argument for or against.
P.S. the down votes are by those (probably) who think such a question as "Is there original sin?" is not "scientific" and should not be within this forum. The greatest scientist were religious in one form or another: think of Newton, Galileo, Einstein, etc...
In the spirit of the Great American, Carl Panzram, "I feel fine as well."
I'm not so sure, "man accepted to bear sin," for we just wake up one day and find ourselves in the world; then we learn of our fate...not much choice in the matter, really.
It's not about sin... But about marveling... Love.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8AWFf7EAc4
J.
Should we ask about mistakes at all? There are so many truths... So many religions, as individuals on the Earth... Our personal little Bibles, personal Holly books and churches... In each and everyone oh them, Love is the word that saves.
J.
I believe in a concept... of sinfulness of human being... But it's like... if there were no sin... we couldn't know the beauty of the redemption... or the beauty of being good.
Childish view... But we should all be like them...
J.
The most original sin is not the thinker's but the poet's.
--- Jose Bergamin
A quote from Mahatma Gandhi on “Seven Deadly Sins"
- Wealth without work
- Pleasure without conscience
- Science without humanity
- Knowledge without character
- Politics without principle
- Commerce without morality
- Worship without sacrifice.
Mahatma Gandhi...
The wisdom of the past is the wisdom of the future.
I don't think the rocks and atoms whizzing about us care a hoot if we learn anything. It is common to perceive the purpose of life subjectively, like all exists so we may learn. Suffering is a lesson, but not one worth much, e.g. a mother sees her child ripped from her arms and shot in the head, right in front of her, by occupational forces, who could give a damn about life or limb for all those persons they perceive to be subhuman. Lesson? Well, man is careless, evil, etc, pick what you like, but the lesson is obvious and well-worn. Sin is a condition of decay and death and not some sort of mistake that we carry forward through life to later learn from or compensate for; rather, it is a painful condition of suffering in and within an imperfect world. For example, recently, a twelve year old child went up to the Pope, in Malaysia, to ask, "Why God allows twelve year old children to suffer prostitution?" The Pope's answer was patently hollow...as any one out there who would venture to explain the cause or reason for such misery, but of all the explanations that fall flat on their face, there is the one about learning something.
original sin is culturally particular, and arises from a specific anthropology, it follows that another culture could function on a different anthropology and in turn differ in its understanding of sin (and salvation)
https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/8368/Kampen_Melanie.pdf?sequence=1
There is a consensus that humanity is living in sin (jealousy, rejection of others, greed, cheating others and oneself, corruption, narcissism, violence ...). What to do? Continue to develop the inherent qualities of a person? No. First of all we must admit that we are sinners. Secondly, we must repent of our sins. And third, we must try to stop doing what is sinful.
@Krishnan. The thesis you cite is typical in blaming Western/Occidental culture for many problems in the world and that if only indigenous peoples could cast off the yoke of Christian/Colonial tyranny, then all would be just fine; but, the Truth is far from being so simple as, "The author of all Evil is Colonialism and the West". Before the mid-Atlantic slave trade, Middle-Easterners (Islam) came to conquer and enslave Africa. Before then, Rome, Athens, Egypt, etc... Moreover, competing tribes within Africa gladly participated in the vibrant slave trade, as a means of depopulating rival tribes and taking over their land. In North America, the native Indians were far from being the peaceful, pacific, loving peoples often portrayed; but, were as greedy, cunning, murderous--and everything else one might mention--in short, they were the same as all peoples of the world, and they were this without the benefit of that distinctly Mesopotamian concept of Sin.
Colleagues, please carefully use the well-known and beloved German quotation. For example, Louisiana, you remember the quote that "life is a struggle" ("Leben heißt Kampf"). Indeed, the fight against the vices, the fight for the future of the struggle against evil ... But when we think about the world in the soul, in the family, in the world ...
The famous German expression "To each his own" ("Jedem das Seine") has acquired a sinister meaning of the expression after the use during the Second World War. This inscription was at the gates of the concentration camp where people were condemned to death.
Dear prof. Đoko,
agree with you... We can not escape that simple battle of good and evil, like in fairy tales...
J.
I am not christian, and therefore I do not believe in sin.
I believe in crime, and I believe it is committed either by seriously deranged people or by psycopaths (i.e. people who don´t have any emotional attachments as the other men, and therefore choose to do the "morally wrong" acts in order to achieve their own selfish objectives). The first ones should be healed, the second ones either belong in jail or else should be punished by death. All of them shall be somehow made into productive citizens, for the better of the society.
I don´d believe in such a thing as an "immortal soul", so our crimes will (as we ourselves) remain in a (very physical) world. Expiation doesn´t repair a crime, but any criminals should be compelled to make amends (unless they´re willing to do so, on their own).
Wether their debts should (either willingly or not) be amended by their descendants, this is something for society to decide. Some crimes, though -- like the moral degrading, rape, torture, and rape) can never be fully repayed, and, of course, the "an eye for an eye" solution can make some sense as to educational and payback endings, but will never make amends to the true crime.
I don´t accept the thesis that "crimes may be passed to children" as some kind of inheritance, though. We all inherit the genes from our biologic parents, and the education from our carent parents. Some of us inherit goods and money.
However, after coming of age (be it at 16, 18, 21 years old) we all have the choice to be for or against the human laws (As I am not christian, neither am I a theist, and therefore I don´t believe in any kind of "god´s law").
To say that men is "intrinsically evil" or that men has "inherited the evil of an original sin after creation" or any such thing is an utter nonsense. The same goes to say that "intrinsically good" and/or 'was/is/will be corrupted by someone/thing evil" is as nonsensical as that.
Man is neither evil nor good, but he can make evil or good deeds. It is the totality of his acts that defines him, and he has the power to change himself. No man "is 100% good" neither "100% bad". It is absolutely unfair to define any man as better or worse on account of what any of his descendants, brethren, siblings or ascendants have been, are, or will be. Each of us is unique, undividable and undeniably mortal (though some may "live in the memories of others" for what they deeds (either good or evil) are.
Come to think of it, both mental diseases and psichopathy are believed to be caried on, as a genetic characteristics, from parents to children. However, specific genes and means of transmission have never been scientifically determined. -- This is nothing but the old "nature vs nurture" debate. But, anyway, what is being transmitted from parents to kids are not the crimes, but the genes. Therfore ,it doesn´t seem to be fair -- from that standpoint -- to get anyone punished by something that he/she never did.
As for the "nurture" concept, again I affirm that each human is unique; some of us come from criminal families, and -- when come of age -- choose to repeat their parent´s deeds; others will look upon them as examples that should not be followed. On the other side, some of us come from "crimeless families" and -- even though -- decide to follow criminal paths, as they think they´ll never be punished.
So much for Dostoievski´s writings.
Dear all! A man is known by his deeds, not by intentions. Fyodor Dostoevsky took a deep sorrows of the poor and unfortunate people. Dostoevsky's novels urged society to pay attention to the downtrodden. The writer said: the world is not worth a single tear an innocent child.
The roots of racism lie deep in man's nature, wounded and bruised by original sin.
--- Sargent Shriver
Homo sapiens. The mind of every human person is able to protect against acts of aggression and violence. If this happens, it means that the person is formed unreasonable.
To Saadi, "If you are indifferent to suffering of others, you deserve no name as a human being". To Maria Curie, "Science is a foundation of every progress, alleviative the life of humanity and remissive its suffering"
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Epi
- Age Groups
- Children