WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ORIGINAL SIN IS?

It has always been said to me that the first sin in the Bible was eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and it seemed as though this was true. It is the first sin that is plainly stated. However when I really thought about it, I came to a different conclusion: or rather, God lead me to a different conclusion.

That is not to say it was not a sin to do something God told one not to do. So, of course, it was wrong to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: but was that the first sin?

I was told, by men, that the earth was made perfect and without sin, as was Adam and Eve. When I started to really examine this concept, it seemed flawed. If Adam were perfect, he would not have sinned. Perfect people do not make mistakes, which is what both Adam and Eve did when they ate from the tree. God is perfect, and only God is perfect. God makes no mistakes, but all men do.

The thought of someone who is perfect making a mistake scares me. God is perfect and if one who is perfect could make a mistake then we are not eternally safe. Perhaps God would error someday and we will all die. Surely, you know I am jesting about God making a mistake.

Though God said that all that He had made was very good (Gen. 1:31), He did not say it was perfect: so neither should we.

When I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior I received the Holy Spirit or the mind of Christ to instruct me (1 Cor 2:16). His mind in my mind. Though I do not hear an audible voice from God, if I am quiet enough and listen to what seems to be my own thoughts, I do hear from God. One has to be careful so as not to claim credit for some revelation God has given. So know this, if I say I thought about something and reached a conclusion about it, I am not saying I reasoned it out because of my great mental powers. Only that I kept asking God until He gave me the answer that not only fit the part of the Bible I was not understanding, but other parts as well, for a revelation which does not fit another part of the Bible is no revelation.

To get back to my subject, Genesis 2:25 kept bothering me. I thought that if I were walking and talking with God, and I was naked, I certainly would feel shame: wouldn’t you? I have the knowledge of good and evil. It was passed on to me along with the gift of life, just as it is given to everyone. So, I know I would feel shame, because it would be a sin. It would not be showing proper respect to, and for, our Heavenly Father.

If you think I am wrong, consider yourself walking with God naked. I think you can see that walking naked with anyone, other than your mate, would be wrong. You would be embarrassed and ashamed of your nakedness. Your mate has become one with you and therefore you would not be walking naked with someone else if you were only with your mate.

You know this would be wrong, because you also have the knowledge of good and evil. Can you see that if it is a sin for you today, when you know it is a sin, it would still be a sin, even if you did not know it was?
This became apparent to both Adam and Eve as soon as they acquired the knowledge of sin. The first thing they did was to try to clothe themselves. The second thing they did was to hide from God. They were afraid of God because they knew they had sinned by appearing naked before Him. If they did not consider this a sin, they would not have been afraid, as they had already clothed themselves, but they were afraid because they knew they had sinned.

Consider Genesis 2:25 (NIV) “The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” They felt no shame because they did not yet understand that it was wrong. As soon as they knew sin, they tried to cloth themselves (Gen 3:7). Adam did not say, “I hid from you because I disobeyed you by eating from the tree in the middle of the garden.” Adam said, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

There is something, which I must try to clear up, even though it has not yet been brought up. I was trying to explain the first sin to my Bible class (I love those guys, but some times I am hard to love in return), and one of them said that God had seen him naked in the shower that very morning, because God sees everything. He implied that it was not a sin for God to see a Christian naked. This seemed almost logical until I had time to think about it, or it would be better said to reason with the Lord. The Lord reminded me that I was clothed with Christ and was always clothed with Christ, so I cannot, at anytime, walk with God naked. It is not that God could not see me unclothed, but that God will not see me unclothed. There are two ways to be unclothed: physical and spiritual. God sees everything, so even if God saw me in the shower this morning, though He did see me physically nude, He did not look at my sin. God uses the physical world, which we know, to illustrate spiritual truths. After all, we only know this world. We do not know about spiritual matters, because we have only lived in this world. How could, or would you explain Hawaii to someone who only knows the North Pole?

Look how fair God is. Adam and Eve didn’t know it was wrong to walk with God unclothed and God knew they did not understand. So, God did not condemn them for it. However as soon as they understood, God did condemn them for their sin, but even though He condemned their actions, He made a covering for them.

Do you see how this fits with the Bible as a whole? The most important possession a person can have is a proper covering for his or her sin, and that covering is Jesus. Everyone who has life also has the knowledge of good and evil. It was not sin that entered into mankind when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit; it was the knowledge of sin. Along with the knowledge of sin came the realization they needed a covering for the sin they had already committed.

This seems to me to be the most important message of the Bible, or the plan that God has for each person. That all mankind are born to sin, and need a covering for their sin, so God does not see their sin when He looks at them. God, Himself, has made a proper covering for our sin. This concept is laid out, through symbolism, in the first story about the first man and the first woman.

I believe the key that the Holy Spirit gave me for understanding this is the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve ate was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of good and evil.

If you still believe Adam and Eve were made perfect, you will have to reconcile how a perfect person made a mistake. Perhaps you are applying a different definition to the word “perfect” than I am. By perfect, I mean, “Being without defect or blemish” (American Heritage Dictionary). It would be a defect if Adam could sin.

Not to confuse anyone, but do you see the symbolism I spoke of in an earlier post about women in ministry? The woman representing man was tempted by Satan (Adam, representing Jesus, did not yield to temptation). She brought the fruit to Adam, who represents Jesus and he ate of it. All mankind sin and we bring our sin to Jesus, and for us He became sin.

While I am on the subject of sin, have you ever wondered why God hates sin? It seems to me He hates sin because it always hurts someone else. We always view sin from our own selfish perception. We think of ourselves and realize that we must pay a penalty for sin and it will hurt us in the long run. Therefore, we should not sin. Now if you think about it sin always hurts someone else. The murderer hurts the victim, the thief hurts those he steals from, the lie deceives someone else, and the idolater hurts the feelings, or heart, of God.

It is said that God loves the sinner, but God also loves the victim and when one sins he, or she, always hurts one whom God loves. After all, God gave the victim life and wealth and it is wrong to attempt to change anything that God has done. If God wants you, or me, to be rich He will make it so: in His time and in His way, and it would be a sin for someone else to steal it for themselves, just as it would be a sin for you to take something that God had put in another’s care.

That is my view of the first sin. Surely, if you have read any of my post, you did not think it would be the same view as you had: did you?

29 Responses to WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ORIGINAL SIN IS?

  1. Some interesting thoughts there. But to engage on just one idea: About the supposed perfection of Adam and Eve before the fall?

    Two lines of thought. One, if we accept the idea that Adam (it is my understanding that the word includes male and female) was created flawed and imperfect, and yet God pronounced his creation “very good,” what are we to say of God’s judgment? Or what confidence are we to have about His work in general? You suggest that the ability to sin is a flaw. Perhaps the fact that there is such a capacity, in an un-fallen human, whose creation God pronounced “very good” suggests another answer living in the tension of those seemingly opposing statements. I would suggest that in order to fill the role God intended/intends for us demands that we have the capacity to choose things that are not God, that we have the capacity to choose things that hurt other creatures. Here is why.

    I think that at least part of what God has in mind for Humans (and the whole of our purpose has not yet been revealed) is found in the doctrine of the Trinity, and the fact that God said “let us make man in our image, in our likeness.” Indeed, the ultimate creative act of all entities is to bring forth life after their own nature. At least in part, the Trinity suggests that at it’s very core, reality is corporate. It is plural, but with a bond so intrinsic to the persons that it is no mere figure of speech to say that they are One. God is One, and yet Three in a way I cannot quite get my head around, although we get an occasional glimpse “as through a glass, darkly.” To me, this implies that we also are to be one. In the words of Jesus “that all of them may be one, Father, just as a you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us… I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one…” (John 17) There is to be a bond between us and God, between us and other humans so total that we may be one, although not loosing each his or her own uniqueness. The Father is distinct from the Son, and the Holy Spirit, even though the blessed Unity is complete. This is a bond of love, which must by definition be voluntary.

    And that is the catch: if it is to be voluntary, if it is to be freely chosen, it must be possible to choose against it. If God was (is) to create a being capable of joining into such a bond, a marriage if you will, then he had to have the capacity to forsake the union. And as Murphy’s Law suggests, anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. If Mankind had to be created with this free will, it was axiomatic that it would at some point be exercised.

    But I would suggest that this is not some disaster that sprung up unawares to spoil what God was trying to do. Since He “sees the end from the beginning,” I would think that all this was known to Him before the first move of creation. I think that all of it, including what He was going to have to do to set it right again, was part of the original plan of creation, which is still being worked out; that we are all still in the process of creation and “it has not yet appeared what we shall be”

    But our capacity to choose for “not God” is the same capacity that allows us to choose “for God” and for each other. We could not fulfill our destiny without it.

  2. astudent says:

    Dear Eric,
    You also have some very interesting thoughts.
    I have not heard that Adam includes both male and female, but it makes perfect sense. When Adam was created Eve was in his body, so he truly was created both male and female.
    We are so close to agreeing that I think we do agree. We are just viewing the subject from different perspectives.
    Perhaps it is only semantics that cause any difference that we seem to have.
    Perfect means “being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen” (American Heritage Dictionary). Both Adam and Eve were created without a covering for their sin. If they needed a covering and did not have it that, at least in my book, would be imperfect.
    If God intended to make us imperfect and He did so, then He could very well say His creation is very good.
    I totally agree with you when you say “I would suggest that in order to fill the role God intended/intends for us demands that we have the capacity to choose things that are not God, that we have the capacity to choose things that hurt other creatures.”
    As I understand our role God wants subjects that voluntarily want to live with Him. To be a fair test God has to give us the power to reject Him and He can not weigh the test either way; for or against Him. (Which is why there is no proof of God and likewise no proof against God)
    It seems that you think I have Calvinistic tendencies, but if you read my other post you will see that I have angered every Calvinist that read them.
    Calvin was so close, yet so far from the truth about original sin. Close because we all come with it (no covering) and yet so far when he says God would hold me responsible for someone else’s sin. God would have to be unfair to me in order to do that and God is not unfair: to anyone.
    I totally agree with the last part of your comment from “voluntary” on to the end.
    Buy the way did you read my post on the Trinity? It comes with a guarantee.
    astudent

  3. deigratia says:

    In order to uderstand everything God has written the bible will interpret itself, and allow no outside human intervention.
    ISA says a dawn light was called Lucifer, and he wanted to be God

  4. deigratia says:

    O man is from the word Adam. Adam was made from the
    dust of the ground. We too are like Adam a pile of dust.
    Why shouldn’t we walk humbly with our God? Why are
    men, made from mud, so proud and vain?
    God has showed you, O man. Since the time of Adam, God
    has shown man His truth. Apostles and prophets have been
    slaughtered for delivering God’s precious truth. Man has had
    ample opportunity and has failed utterly. Now Christ is about
    to intervene and bring us His glorious justice.

  5. astudent says:

    deigratia,

    The Bible is a Book written by God, using men to write as we would use our right hand. It is inerrant and infallible. Books themselves can not speak so a book can not explain itself, which is what interpret means. The Holy Spirit is given to those who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and he interprets the Bible for us; to us. We say the Bible interprets itself because the Spirit points out agreement of all verses and because He is in our mind it seems as though the Book itself is speaking to us. That is why a nonbeliever can not understand the Bible. They do not have the Spirit to interpret what the Bible says. The Spirit is the teacher and the Bible is the textbook.
    (John 14:26 NIV) But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

    You know there is usually always a different way to look at anything. You say that we are like Adam, a pile of dust, but Adam was made in the image of God. Though he was made from dirt I don’t think we can any longer view him as dirt. It seems to me that when we do so we belittle the image of God.

    As I look inside myself it is starting to offend me when others express their Calvinistic views about how corrupt man is. I can not defend myself as I am corrupt, however I am made in the image of God and He thinks so much of me that He sent Jesus to die for my corruption and Jesus thought enough of me to do so. Dirt can’t walk, so dirt can not walk either humbly or proudly with God. Because we are made in the image of God and God thinks so much of us it doesn’t seem right to refer to us as “dirt”. We are flesh, not dirt.

    I am not saying that you are wrong about anything that you said. Just that I have a different view. Imagine that; me having a different view! Hummm And not keeping to myself either! Hummm

  6. Pirsey says:

    Hey, cool tips. Perhaps I’ll buy a bottle of beer to that person from that chat who told me to go to your blog 🙂

  7. astudent says:

    Pirsey,

    Hey, how about buying him one for me.

  8. Nat Freeman says:

    The concept of being naked seems rather dubious to me if not completely unsubstantiated in the text of Genesis. Why don’t you reread the first page of Genesis as if you were coming from another planet? Read it as to what it says in plain english and you might just see it in a different light.

    I direct your attention to Genesis 1:29 where the first thing it tells us about mankind is that we were created vegetarians. Why was it important to mention this instead of saying that man was created in Gods image or was created as the one truly humane creature on earth? The only possible reason is that the original sin was mans breaking of the first and only prescription mentioned up to that point. That mankind was created a vegetarian – right? Right!

    The “fruit of the tree of life” and the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” are two sides of the same coin. They are called metaphors and lock in the nature of the transgression. First, the fruit of the tree of life is mention more than once in Genesis and each and every time it refers to animal life so who would it mean anything different the first time it appears? It doesn’t!

    Second, the tree of knowledge of good and evil refers to man being created a vegetarian and knowing only good. There is only one thing mankind could do to know evil and that was to consume the flesh of animals – a sin against Gods implied prohibition at Genesis 1:29. Nowhere in Genesis is there mentioned anything about an apple, peach or pear as being the “fruit” of the tree of life. And, the only sin possible because of Genesis 1:29 is to consume the flesh of dead or dying beasts. Something we (human kind) was told not to do. Now you know the true meaning of the Original and Continuing Sin of mankind.

    Adam and Eve drove themselves out of the garden by breaking the rules of their very creation. That is why they (we/us) now suffer from disease, sickness and all manner of suffering. That is why we now know the shame of being naked. Nakedness is natural, but when mankind lives as an outlaw he/she now experiences the reversal of everything that is good and knows both good and evil.

  9. astudent says:

    Nat Freeman,

    O K, I took your advice. I read the first chapter of Geneses in plain English (you did mean the chapter and not just the first page: didn’t you?). Actually I must read it in English as I do not understand Hebrew.

    The first thing that Geneses says about mankind is found in verse 1:28 not 1:29. You did mean the first command or commands that God gave mankind; didn’t you?

    You are right that man was supposed to be a vegetarian, as were all of the creatures that God made. That was in a perfect world, but Adam and Eve did not believe God and their disbelief changed almost everything. It seems to me that in the world that God first created there would have been no such thing as death. Nothing was to die that others could eat, but we no longer live in a perfect world.

    You say, “First, the fruit of the tree of life is mention more than once in Genesis and each and every time it refers to animal life”. It does not at all. A tree is plant life not animal life (plain English). The fruit of a tree is the fruit of plant life, not animal life.

    Nakedness is only natural for animals. They are not ashamed because they are naked. Man is ashamed when viewed by others when naked, because it is not right and we know it isn’t. We know it because Adam and Eve didn’t believe God and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Until then they only knew good, but they acquired the knowledge of evil when they ate from the tree. The words, in plain English are “tree” and “fruit”, not “animal” or “flesh”. I would not try to change the Word of God.

    Because we are sinful and do not do what God originally intended that we do, He has, for our sake, removed any sin from eating the flesh of animals.

    (Acts 10:13 NIV) Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

    Accept the same command that was given to Peter, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” He said that we could kill and eat. If you think otherwise then do not eat flesh, but I don’t feel guilty for doing so, though I cannot bare to kill something.

  10. Nat Freeman says:

    You cannot bare to kill something, but you will order another to do your killing for you? The law clearly states that it is the one who orders an unlawful act is guilty more than the one that does the act. That being said, you must not understand the concept of a metaphor at all. The fruit of the tree of life refers all through Genesis to animal life, yet you go off on a tangent about nakedness. Why? Are you so afraid of thinking rationally and clearly that you cannot see what is right in front of you.

    If an all knowing Creator made mankind as a vegetarian and that was supposedly “good” then why would not the killing and eating of an animal not be “evil.” I’ll tell you why, it is because you are trapped in your belief that what most people do, especially if they are Christians, must be right. Doesn’t it say that God gave man “every” plant to eat and say it more than once? Yes, Genesis does say that, so why would you think that the tree of life is anything more than a metaphor?

    Further, if man was created as a plant eater, which physiologically is exactly what we are, that is large vegetarian primates, then why did we not change or turn into a flesh eater (evolve?). Humans still are physiologically the most vegetarian of all the primates. We do not have claws like all carnivorous mammals do. We do not have an extended snout with extremely long incisors and serrated teeth, but are equipped with a perfect tooth structure including molars, which are only found in vegetarians and some omnivores (bears come to mind here). But, it is inside that humans are truly made (created/evolved) to process plant based foods. Humans have a long, 28 to 30 foot long intestinal track which is pouched; whereas, all carnivores have a short, smooth intestinal track. About 8 to 10 feet in length. If a supreme Creator did indeed create man as the perfect vegetarian and we are just that. Then why did this creator then change his mind and not change the physiology?

    Humans live as monsters today. We suffer the ill affects of the “original sin” because we have not yet decided that it would be far better to live in harmony with our physiology. Your arguments are ill formed and simply avoid the plain truth of what you see in the mirror every day of your life.

  11. astudent says:

    Nat Freeman,

    Hold on there partner, I didn’t order anyone to kill anything for me. The meat in the market place was put there without any input from me. It would be there whether or not I buy it, or consume it. If you want to say that I support the process, then you would be correct. That is quite different from saying that I ordered something to be killed.

    I considered your claim that the fruit of the tree of life refers all through Genesis to animal life and I searched the word truth as found in Geneses. It is found 7 times in the NIV. The very first time it is found destroys your claim.

    (Gen 1:11 NIV) “Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: SEED-BEARING PLANTS AND TREES on the land THAT BEAR FRUIT WITH SEED IN IT, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.”

    Plants and trees are just that, not animals. If God were going to create a metaphor that would pertain to animals then I believe He would have at least used animals to present it. The metaphor is about not believing God, not what one eats.

    You asked, “Then why did this creator then change his mind and not change the physiology?” You are asking the wrong one for that answer. Ask God, as I didn’t have anything to do with it.

    You seem to have you mind set on things of this earth, not on spiritual things. I do not know you, so I cannot make a perfect conclusion, however it seems that you do not believe the Bible. If you did, you would accept Acts 10:13-15. It clearly states that God made it clean. If God made all of the animals then He owns all animals and if He says it is all right, then it is all right. Even though I do not kill, it would not be wrong, in God’s eyes, for me to do so.

    Yes, at times I am a Bible thumper.

  12. Nat Freeman says:

    First, a metaphor would not and usually does not contain that which it is describing. Second, just contract with some one to murder another and when you are both caught ask why the prosecutor wants the death penalty for you and not the one that did the killing? It is because you ordered it to be done. The dead animals in the market are there because you ordered it and continue to do so. You are guilty of the act of killing the animal, the slaughter house employee is only your servant, your proxy.

    I find it sad that you do not understand the concept of a metaphor, or that you seem to think that the Christian bible was written by any one other than a mere mortal. Most Christians believe it was Moses, although there are many theories. It is interesting to me that the Genesis story of Noah and the Ark differs widely from one script to another. In the King James version God makes a pact with humanity by signing the contract with a rainbow, and promises to never bring another flood to destroy mankind. Whereas, in other older scripts the rainbow story is absent and in its’ place we find God giving Noah and his family a dispensation on the eating of flesh until the first crops come in. I stumbled on this inconsistency over 40 years ago and wondered just how many other things good old King James had “remodeled” to suit his “taste.”

    I believe you are either very young or very brain washed to the point that you cannot see that a God that cannot make up his/her mind is not a God at all. The Creator of this universe, a causeless cause, prime mover, etc. to my way of thinking would be supremely logical and more important honest. Or maybe you are not honest with yourself. As already stated, you, me and every other human on this planet is physiologically a perfect vegetarian. You were born that way and you will die that way, and depending on how smart (wise?) you are, you will live that way. You only have to look at your parents, your teachers and see what a flesh diet has done to them. Arthritis, heart disease, and cancer are/is your reward(s) for breaking the natural law. Hearing aids and eye glasses along with a plethora of pills, potions and prescription drugs await you and every dead flesh eater I have ever met. I along with every other humane being that lives according to their creation avoids those pitfalls. At the very young age of 68 I have my own hair, no eye glasses, no hearing aids and have not taken one pill of any kind (prescription or otherwise) in over 40 years.

    Can you match me? Can any of your professors? Your parents? I sincerely doubt it. Yet, this is not unusual for those who understand that one of the most important things in life is to know what you are (a large vegetarian primate) and live accordingly. Your protestations are illogical, inconsistent, and without substance or any factual basis. Ask yourself this question, “Why should Genesis 1:29 exists at all, why is there any need to know that man was created to only consume plant base foods “to you it shall be for meat.” The first part of verse 29 describes to some extent the plant based food given to mankind for food. The use of the words “fruit” and “tree” in this instance is not for metaphorical purposes. The only logical reason for verse 29 to exist at all is to give context to the metaphor “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

    Maybe you just need another English teacher who understands syntax and context and the use and difference and between the two.

  13. astudent says:

    Nat Freeman,

    Didn’t you understand me when I said that I had nothing to do with killing animals? Animals and people are slain every day, but I don’t slay them. If someone killed my rich uncle and I inherited something from his death, you would say that I was guilty of murder. I surely hope you are not a judge!

    If either one of us is confused it is certainly you. You do not even believe in Scripture and yet you come here to argue sin! I have intently studied the Bible for over thirty years and you think you know more than I do! I do not doubt that you know more about diet, but you know nothing about sin.

    Sin is doing something to someone else, that you would not want him or her to do to you. It has nothing to do with what one eats, or how they treat their own body.

    You speak as one who will live forever, because you do not eat meat. Well, you aren’t.

    Can I match you? Well, we don’t know, do we? I have lost a lot of my hair and need reading glasses, but then I am 70. Maybe you will still be as you are now in two years and maybe you will not be.

    There is one thing that I am sure of and that is I will live forever and enjoy perfect health in the next life. You could to, if you place as much effort in pursuing God that you place in what you believe about diet.

  14. Nat Freeman says:

    So, you think you have nothing to do with the killing of the animals you consume? Please, give us all a break. If you did not order their killing, then who did? Are you sure you do not suffer from the ill affects of your diet, possibly a little old timers disease? You are right about one thing, I do know a lot more about diet than you, but only because I have not lost my ability to think logically and clearly.

    I think that your God meant what he said at Genesis 1:29 and that meant you are not to kill animals for food. It seems that I also know more about Genesis than you do, or should I say than what you want to know. Like it would seem that you forgot about verses 1:26-27 where God allegedly said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” and at 27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;” And then that same God in verse 29 said, “Behold, I have given you (who I created in my image?) every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree , in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” With thirty years of studying the Bible you should be able to understand that shouldn’t you.

    Yes “Student” your God is a vegetarian, yet you who were allegedly created in his image choose to consume that which your God would not. Yes, you understand nothing. You do not study to learn anything, you study to hone your ability to lie to yourself and others. I do not know what twisted logic one could produce to deny the obvious conclusion that the God of the Christian Bible created a perfect vegetarian mirror image of himself with one glaring fault. That Man would deny his very creation and rationalize that he is a monster created to consume the awful (the rotted remains of the dead) of this world and live in sin forever. Man would not accept his position as the highest of Gods creation and would prefer to live knowing evil, as well as, the good he was too freely given.

    And, what does that say about the God who created something that would reject his goodness even though that creation was made in the very image and likeness of his creator? No, “Student” you haven’t been studying much of anything other than learning how not to think and only believe in that which doesn’t exist. Your God must be very proud of you!

  15. astudent says:

    Nat Freeman,

    Are you a comedian? If you aren’t you surely missed your calling. If you are, then don’t tell me, because it would spoil the effect.

    I find it hilarious that you would suggest that God eats anything! The world and everything in it is a sewer. I wouldn’t eat from the sewer, if I didn’t have to, and God doesn’t have to. That was funny!

    You tell me that my God created man as a vegetarian and yet you do not believe in my God! That is funny! I mean to say that you are claiming a myth created vegetarians! Ha, you were created by a myth: that makes you a myth!!!

    Ha, Ha, your logic is a hoot!!!!

    You were going great guns until you said that my God must be very proud of me. That ruined the whole skit. God isn’t proud of any man, other than Jesus Christ. As an expert on the Bible, you knew that. You should seriously consider returning to clown school for a refresher course. But then, maybe you just have a pea up you nose and all you have to do is blow it out. Be careful though so that you don’t blow any of that large brain out. That would be a terrible loss for all humanity!!!!

  16. Nat Freeman says:

    If the world is a sewer and every thing in it, just remember that you made it that way. You made your body a sewer by consuming the very bottom of the barrel and now you say that I am the comedian?

    And, why does it matter whether I believe or not. I can read and process information which is something you seem unable to do. You choose to eat from the sewer where I choose to eat from the table that your God allegedly set for you. But, wait, you don’t want what your God wants you to eat. You want to know both good and evil and so you shall. I am surprised that you even know the word “logic” when you do not express any ability to think logically.

    You seem to know a lot about someone you never meet, and you even want me to believe you speak for the entity. You putting words in your Gods mouth, now that is the real hoot. Let’s forget about clown school, as you have been there long enough. Show me with that logic of yours where the God of the Bible did not create man in his image and then announce that that creation was made to sup on plant based foods. How did the clown school you have been attending tell you to rationalize those facts. Remember, I am only taking things as they are presented in Genesis without adding or making any rash interpretations.

    Cat got your tongue? Just pull the little fellow out of it and start living like the Humane Being you were meant to be, instead of the monster you have become. Or, is that too hard for you to do? Seems you despise everything about this world, whereas I only feel sad that people such as yourself make everything you touch turn into a sewer.

    You could go talk to a Seventh Day Adventist, as they are one of the few Christian sects that even gives a damn about actually reading their Bible without twisting the heck out of it. Me, I am an agnostic and have been so from the age of seven. I like my beliefs filled out with a fact or two. Something the average religious zealot hates to even consider as necessary or even good.

  17. astudent says:

    Nat Freeman,

    Why do you blame me for everything? I was born into this fallen world, just as you were. You seem to think that you are sin free, because of what you do not eat, but if you really read the Bible, you would know Isaiah 64:6 (NIV) “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.” That word “all” includes you and it doesn’t matter what you eat or what you do not eat.

    Try reading more than the first chapter of Geneses and you might begin to understand the Bible. I already quoted Acts 10:10. Just so that you might actually try to understand God’s Word, I will quote it again. Acts 10:10-16 (NIV) “He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. IT CONTAINED ALL KINDS OF FOUR-FOOTED ANIMALS, AS WELL AS REPTILES OF THE EARTH AND BIRDS OF THE AIR. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and EAT.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.” Peter must have been a bit like you, as God, even God, had to say it three times for him to understand it was OK TO EAT MEAT – OK TO EAT MEAT – OK TO EAT MEAT. This repeated again in Acts 11:4 thru 11:10. That makes six times, but if you don’t understand after three times, then will you understand after six?

    How about Mark 7:18-23? Pay close attention to verse 18.

    Mar 7:18-23 (NIV) “ARE YOU SO DULL?” he asked. “DON’T YOU SEE THAT NOTHING THAT ENTERS A MAN FROM THE OUTSIDE CAN MAKE HIM ‘UNCLEAN’? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”) He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, DECEIT, lewdness, envy, slander, ARROGANCE and FOLLY. All these evils come from inside and make a man “unclean.'”

    Here are some verses from the Old Testament where God commanded His people to eat meat.
    Exodus 12:1-11 (NIV) The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, “This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses WHERE THEY EAT THE LAMBS. That same night THEY ARE TO EAT THE MEAT roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire—head, legs and inner parts. Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. This is how you are to EAT IT: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. EAT IT in haste; it is the LORD’s Passover.

    Which of these words did I put in my God’s mouth? For an expert on my God’s Word, you don’t know much.

  18. Nat Freeman says:

    An expert on God’s word. Where would one find that? All I have done is proved to you and everyone who reads this blog that man according to King James was created a perfect vegetarian animal. This I have never had debunked, nor has anyone with reason and logic been able to overcome the clear words of Genesis regarding this original creation of mankind. It also says in Genesis (the Noah story) that the God of Genesis was fed up with man not wanting to live knowing only good and that that God washed his hands of man, never to again bring a flood to wipe away the likes of those who would eat from the tree of good and evil.

    You students of the bible show yourselves to be exactly what the God of Genesis knew only too well. You deceive yourself into thinking that your own God is an idiot for creating you as you find yourself, a perfect physiological vegetarian. And, you decide that you will be as those before and after the flood – monsters – that eat from the fruit of the tree of life.

    How many pills do you take “student” to sooth the pain of your ill conceived life style. How’s that working out for you? Look around you and see just how that works for every single man and woman who calls themselves “humane” and then continues to break all the rules of their creation. You are a very stupid old man. And, if you doubt those words look in the mirror and see what you have become. Of course, you are not alone in your plight and you may not have deserved what you have got, but you certainly earned it.

    Why don’t you show me where I am wrong about the Genesis version of creation? Why, because you can’t. So you continually shout to the heavens that you will do as you please. I ask you again, how is that working out for you? The religious of the world do not have the good sense to come out of the rain, let alone use what reason and logic they might have left from all their (your?) rationalizing on how you can get away with your worst bad habit. Well, student, I have never seen that trick accomplished by anyone and I am quit sure that you will not be the first. It has also been my experience that the more one quotes from religious texts the less spiritual they are in life. The more monstrous they look and act. Yes, student, you have put yourself in a sewer of your own making and the God of Genesis isn’t going to help you out of that which you have committed yourself to out of ignorance and false pride.

    Quote all you want, but show me where I am wrong about the original sin of Genesis. I’ve gone up against seminary professors on this issue and to my surprise they have agreed with my findings. But, they will not teach the truth of the Genesis creation story because it would cause too much consternation among the faithful. What a crock that is. They will not teach it because they will not live it. They choose to be the monsters they have created just as you lie to yourself and so choose to be a student of that which you obviously despise. You have had the keys to your physical suffering on this earth right in front of you for how long? Seventy years, and you still don’t know how to act. Shame on you!

  19. astudent says:

    Nat Freeman and everyone,

    Well, I have been trying to find a way to talk to Mr. Freeman, but as he only listens to himself, I have not been able to think of any.

    Mr. Freeman speaks into a microphone that is connected to an amplifier, which is connected to headphones, which cover his own ears. When someone else speaks he just turns the volume up.

    Mr. Freeman only proves God right. (2 Cor 10:12 NIV)

    Those who only measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves can never learn anything. What a waste of time!

    I did think it would be amusing to allow him to comment one more time and then to edit his comment so that he sounded like he had come to his senses and admitted that I was correct in everything that I said. Then explain to everyone what I had done, but for Mr. Freeman’s mental health, I feel that I must forgo that pleasure.

    It is not me that Mr. Freeman must please, but it is God. (Heb 11:6 NIV) And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

    I have no more time for Mr. Freeman. There are only two that can help him: Mr. Freeman and God, but Mr. Freeman doesn’t believe God exists. If Mr. Freeman would come to his senses and realize that he is going to die, no matter what he eats or doesn’t eat, then he would have a chance of honestly considering whether or not there is a God and when one honestly considers God there can be no other answer than, “Yes, there is a God”.

    FREEMAN, GET YOUR HAND AWAY FROM THAT VOLUME CONTROL. YOU ARE KILLING YOURSELF.

  20. Nat Freeman says:

    Well, Student, I didn’t expect to hear from you again as your last diatribe was off point as usual. To wit: my original contentions were first, that mankind was created by the god of Genesis (1:26-29) as perfect vegetarians in the image and likeness of that god. And, second that mankinds fall from grace was the direct result of mans disregard of the first contention. Once you understand that the phrases, “the fruit of the tree of life” and “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” are metaphors, and that both refer to man eating from the wrong tree. As such mankind earns the affects of straying from his intended paradise diet with the unintended consequences of disease and a shortened lifespan.

    References to other, later old testament sections of King James only enforce the fact that the god of Genesis in the Noah story disavowed his creation by in effect saying that he (god) would not bring another flood to cleanse the earth of a creation gone bad, and that he would not force compliance with his law. This did not of course change human physiology or our need to live in accord with our creation. It only explains why mankind still suffers the effects of a wrong turn that has not been corrected, as no one can say that mankind does not still have an intimate knowledge of both good and evil to this very day.

    The Student jumped to into an argument that he could not win, as this reporter had the advantage of what was so plainly stated in
    Genesis for all to understand if they truly wanted to. The sad thing is that most will not accept even a small amount of cognitive dissonance in order to ascend to the higher truth. Most devolve into willful ignorance to hide from that which could only improve their lives exponentially. The human race is best at lying to themselves (rationalizing), and at worst simply denying that which has been right in front of them from the start.

  21. astudent says:

    Nat Freeman,

    You were not even right when you said that I jumped unto an argument that I could not win! I did not jump into any argument: you did! I merely stated what I believe is correct and you jumped in. You are correct when you say that I cannot win this argument and it is because you are only listing to yourself.

    You see some truth in the Bible, but you are stuck on the first few chapters and you “refuse” to accept anything more.

    Do not listen to me. Listen to yourself and apply it to yourself.

    “The human race is best at lying to themselves (rationalizing), and at worst simply denying that which has been right in front of them from the start.”

    I could not have said it better, unless I said, “Nat Freeman is best at lying to himself (rationalizing), and at worst simply denying that which has been right in front of him from the start.”

    I would say that I am sorry for saying that, but you really didn’t hear it anyway.

  22. Nat Freeman says:

    astudent, I see! You are correct. I don’t know what I was thinking. It is dumb, to claim part of the Bible as the Word of God, and not other parts. It is all of God’s Word, or none of it is.

    I see that it doesn’t really matter what one eats. I understand that everyone will die when God decides it is their time.

    I am sorry for being so stupid. I am not nearly as intelligent as I thought I was.

  23. astudent says:

    Nat Freeman,

    You see? You don’t listen.

    I warned you, but you are so smart, or you think you are, you only listened to yourself.

    Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you.

    Bet you don’t think this is as funny as I do!

  24. astudent says:

    Those who follow these comments,

    The truth is that Mr. Freeman didn’t write that last comment. I edited his comment to make it look as if he came to his senses. It isn’t as though I didn’t warn him that I had the power to do so.

    Actually, his last comment was pretty much like his first.

    At some point, one must shake the dust off their feet and move on and I felt that it was time. I didn’t go away mad. I was laughing as I went, but to be as fair as I can to Mr. Freeman, he didn’t learn a thing. He is right that man was originally designed to be a vegetarian, because everything was designed to exist without any death. However, for some unknown reason Mr. Freeman cannot seem to advance beyond that!

    Perhaps if he would ask God for wisdom he could learn about sin and then realize what would really save him. However, that is up to him.

    As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. I am only iron and it is not possible for me to sharpen Mr. Freeman. Mr. Freeman must press himself against the Sharpening Stone: I am not permitted too, if I could, I would.

  25. Nat Freeman says:

    So this is how you make believe that your arguments are superior to others on this blog. Shame on the student who cannot sustain a point of view without modifying the oppositions posts. Put it back the way I wrote it so that all may see that the student cannot stay on point or discern first principals from mere unsubstantiated belief.

    You warned me? Warned me that you are a cheat and would violate even the most basic norms of civility. So this is how you win a discussion? Shame on you. Iron, more like a flake I’d say.

  26. astudent says:

    Nat Freeman,

    If you would listen I said, “I did think it would be amusing to allow him to comment one more time and then to edit his comment so that he sounded like he had come to his senses and admitted that I was correct in everything that I said. Then explain to everyone what I had done, but for Mr. Freeman’s mental health, I feel that I must forgo that pleasure.

    Well, I just couldn’t resist any longer. I realized that you didn’t comprehend what I say so it makes no difference what I say.

    You have continually called me names and then you say that I “violate even the most basic norms of civility”!

    You are a funny guy Nat Freeman, but we are done here.

  27. Jade says:

    Have you ever read a bible verse & had a nagging feeling that there was more to it then just what it said? That there was a deeper meaning to the words & the feeling that the writer choose those (specific) words for a reason but you weren’t sure what the reason was or even how to really go about asking others about it?

    That’s how I felt about the “tree of the knowledge of Good & Evil” verse. I’ve always had the feeling that “the knowledge” part was important but I was never quite sure what to do about the feeling.

    Your words have helped me better understand what had always sort of bothered me about that verse & you gave me a several things to think about regarding it.

    What sort of confuses me is the fact that God walked & talked with them, right? So if Adam & Eve had any doubts about anything (i.e. if they wanted to know why God said “don’t eat of this tree” or what he meant by “you will die”) they could have asked him, right? So why didn’t they?

    Even though God’s ways are so much higher than our ways, I don’t think it’s impossible for us to understand him. If there is something we don’t understand, we can always ask for clarification, right? And God wants to be known, right? If it was impossible for us to understand him & for him to be known, why would he have given us the Bible & the Holy Spirit?

    So what you believe is that before they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil…they were/had sinned & just did not realize it? God knew their heart & their actions (were sinful) and yet they did not have the knowledge of good & evil so even though they were sinning, they did not feel shame. The “being naked & feeling no shame” is not just speaking about their outward nakedness, but their spiritual nakedness as well?

    I disagree about Adam not yielding to temptation. He did.

    resisting temptation = not sinning
    sin = to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil
    resisting temptation (sin) = not eating of the tree
    Adam ate of the tree = Adam sinned = he yielded to temptation

    Adam did not have to eat, he choose to. He could have chosen to say to Eve “even though you ate, I will not”.

  28. astudent says:

    Jade,

    Well, now you have raised the same questions in my mind.

    My answer would only agree with the post. Adam and Eve did not know evil until they ate from the tree. To question God would be the sin of unbelief. So, it probably did not occur to them to do so.

    I know sin, therefore I must question God. Because I know both evil and good, it is imperative that I ask. I have no fear of being punished for unbelief, because I know, at least, that much about God: that He would not punish me for asking. How would I know if I didn’t ask?

    I didn’t mean that Adam did not sin. I was comparing Adam’s accepting sin, with Jesus taking our sin. Both knew it was wrong, but it might be that both did so in order to stay with the sinner. Anyway, that was the result.

    Thanks for making me think about it: and rereading it. I copied and pasted it from Word (not The Word) and I didn’t notice the errors.

  29. creationwitness says:

    I am must thank for Nathan for his comments. They bring questions to mind and maybe he can answer a few of them for me, but I will begin with this one:

    If you believe what is written in Genesis, then do you believe what is written elsewhere in the bible?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: