A Dissertative Essay by Peripatetic Professor of Applied Practical Theology,
Daniel Roy Bloomquist, S.T.D. [Honorary Doctor of Sacred Theology]

What seems to be the singular word: "sinature" (convenient eight-lettered DOS-based alphanumerics) is a contraction for two separate words: "sin nature" (or "sinful nature") -- involving the topic of this essay concerning questions of:

(1) Are we born because of sin, and/or
(2) Are with born into sin, and/or
(3) Are we born sinful?

Do you think that people are intrinsically good? Or instead evil? Are most people basically either one? Or a few of them essentially one, or instead, the other? A mixed-up combination of both?

If they are either one or the other overall, or a combination of both, WHY?

Psalm 51:5 Hey, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Screwed from the start. Pass the buck on to mommy. Was it sin that she had genital coitus to produce him without his previous permission? And/or sinful that she was probably fully naked while doing it? If he was thus shackled with "original sin" and she was also from her parents, who and/or Who started all this atrocious mess, and how did it happen?

Are humans slaves to involuntary mandates they are helplessly subject to as proverbially "hardwired" instincts and habits . . . or do they also have free-willed choice as to whether they will be what the Bible (and quite a few people who either read or do not read Scripture) define and include as "good" -- in contrast to what is "evil?"

Galatians 4:3 So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe.
Galatians 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the Law,
Galatians 4:5 to redeem those who were under the Law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

According to the above, Law defines what is "good" compared to what is "evil".

But it is not necessary to obey the Law to be saved, right?

Titus 3:3 We ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another;
4 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
5 He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,
6 which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

That "forget about the Law - it does not matter anymore" presumption seems reiterated by:

Romans 3:20 No human being will be justified in [God's] sight by [doing good, or instead evil?] works of [or against?] the Law, being that through the Law comes knowledge of sin.
24 they are justified ["justified" or instead atoned for? ]by His grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God put forward as an expiation by His blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in His divine forbearance He had passed over former sins; [and rightly so, because God Himself imposed the Tempting Serpent and Lethal Tree in Eden]
26 it was to prove at the present time that He Himself is righteous [fair-minded, because of what He Himself imposed in Eden] and that He justifies him who has faith in Jesus.
28 We hold that a man is justified by faith apart from [doing good, or instead evil?] works of Law.

So, it does not matter if we do either good works for or instead evil works against the Law, but simply "believe in Jesus" - whatever that means.

If we are not saved by doing good works, are we damned if we do good works (instead of evil works)? Does it matter - because of the [license-to-sin-and-get-away-with-it?] gospel of forgiveness? We HAVE to actually end up doing EITHER one thing OR the opposite - NOT both simultaneous nor ultimately! We cannot stop our vehicle for both a red stoplight and a green light at a busy intersection!

CAN there be peace among those who read the Divine Drivers Manual and those who ignorantly or deliberately have not done so?

Ephesians 2:14-15 (Christ Jesus) has broken down the middle wall of partition, or division, [between Jews and Gentiles], causing to cease the enmity - the ceremonial/animal-sacrifices law of commandments in decrees.

Concerning (and not "regarding") those who either ignorantly or deliberately have not read and/or do not comply with the Divine Holy-Bible-Law Drivers Manual, what do cops in waiting squad cars (i.e. God Himself as Chief) think about such willful or ignorant indifference to the Manual?

Deuteronomy 25:16 All who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?

First Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the non-righteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
First Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the [sin-craving/disobedience-against-Moral-Law] flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
Galatians 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,
Galatians 5:21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:3 But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be suggested among you, as is fitting among saints.
4 Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving.
5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
7 Therefore do not associate with them

Hebrews 12:14 Strive for peace with all persons, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

So WHAT does it mean to "believe in Jesus?"

Believe that He existed? And/or believe that He did deceptive magic, or instead real supernatural miracles? And/or believe that He was (and yet is) the Son of God in the [non-sin-craving] flesh? Believe that His death on a cross fully atones for and completely redeems penitent sinners, who acknowledge that there is such a thing as "sin" as defined by Law and what it consists or is comprised of, acknowledge that they have at times disobediently not fully obeyed the Law, regret that they sinned, and (most importantly) completely intend to never sin again, forever?

Well, IS it legitimate to regard the Law as mere suggestion or advice, and not mandatory requirement for salvation (note that I did not instead use the word: "atonement" here) along with belief in the gospel of Christ atoning for us on a cross? Shall the Law now be ignored - even despised? If it is disregarded, are we intrinsically being righteous or instead wicked, with eternal consequences?

Romans 7:5 While we were living in the [ignorant-of-or-deliberately-disobedient-against-Law] flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the [Moral] Law, were operational in our members to bear fruit for death.
6 But now we are no longer obligated to comply with the [ceremonial/antimal-sacrifices] law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written [ceremonial/antimal-sacrifices] code but in the new life of the Spirit.
7 What then shall we say? That the Moral Law is sin? By no means! If it had not been for the Law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet."
8 But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the Law sin lies dead. [and we are also deceased, buried or cremated, apart from Law]

[ NOTE: Paul seems to be blaming "sin" as if it was some abstraction apart from him like some philosophical or mental disease indigenous to, plus rife and reeking within, the sickness-breeding/disease-and-disability-causing Law, from which he contagiously got sick from. But such "sickness" or abstraction supposedly alluding to such is actually Paul's [and our] own deliberate choice to disobey the Law when under non-solicited temptational duress -- and not some separate foreign physical or philisophical foreign bacteria or virus infecting him from the outside ].

Romans 7:9 I was once "alive" [in ignorant or deliberately stupidity] apart from the Law, but when the Commandment(s) came, sin revived and I died [no more "fun" or irresponsibility living like the Devil];
10 the very commandment which promised life proved to be death [ofignorant or deliberately demonic stupidity] to me.
11 For sin, inciting disobedience against The Commandments, deceived me and by it killed me [no more yippe-skippie gay to fool around].
12 So the [Moral] Law is holy, and the Commandment(s) [are] holy and just and good.

Clearly then, the Law is not the disease which sin is, but is it yet the carrier of the disease?

Romans 7:13 Did the Law which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, so that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
14 We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am carnal, captivated to sin.
15 I do not understand my own, because I do not do what I want, but do the very thing I hate [although that does not ultimate include hating the Law nor obedience to the Law, especially when I actually do obey it most of the time]
16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the Law is good. [What has not doing what he wants to do make the Law out to be good? Weird logic.]
17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which resides within me. [Blame the object or thing, not the person? C'mon now.]
18 So I know that nothing good resides within me, that is, in my [occasional-caving-in-to-disobey-Law] flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. [But I can and usually do not not rob banks, rape women, molest and dismember children, burn synagogues to the ground, nor assassinate Caesar]
19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. [So the evil of worshipping Satan and committing anti-Roman-soldiers genocide is what Paul actually and continuously does?]
20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which resides within me. [Blame the object, again - not the person? C'mon now, Paul. Objects will not burn in Hell, but instead people themselves will burn in Hell]

Romans 7:21 So I find it to be a "law" [pitiful phenomenon or practice] that when I want to do right, evil lies close by.
22 I delight in the Law of God, in my inmost self, [WOW!]
23 but I see in my members another "law" [habitual disgusting phenomenon] at war "with" [i.e. against] the "law" [practice] of my mind and making me captive to the law [habit] of sin which resides in my members.
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the Law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the "law" [addictively-repetitious habits] of sin. [though not always serving the law/practices of sin, because if he actually served the law/habits of sin, he would run red stoplights, rape women, burn Torahs and synagogues to the ground, and commit murderous genocide against Roman soldiers and even Caesar]

Notice in verse 22 above that Saint Paul "delights in the Law of God." That is why he was on the right track, qualifies him to benefit by the atoning gospel of Christ which (because he delights in the Moral Law] is applicable to him, and has and will end up in Heaven instead of Hell.

Most people do not "delight in the Law of God" but instead want to rebelliously and defiantly disobey the Law of God as much as they presume they can get away with it.

First Samuel 15:23 Rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

Proverbs 17:11 An evil man seeks only rebellion, and a cruel messenger will be sent against him.
Proverbs 19:19 A man of great wrath will pay the penalty, because if you deliver him, you will only have to do it again.
Proverbs 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.
Proverbs 27:22 Crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his folly will not depart from him.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because sentence against an wicked work is not executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evil.

Jeremiah 15:22 And if you say in your heart, 'Why have these things come upon me?' it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you suffer violence.
Jeremiah 15:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.

What stops those who gradually and subtly want to sin, or quickly and dramatically want to sin?

Proverbs 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the back of fools. [The rod also being fear of police arrest, public embarrassment being arrested, handcuffs and confinement in cop cars, schedules delayed and late for work from traffic stops, court appearances, expensive fines, time in jail, bail costs, defense attorney fees, car insurance rates raised, reputational damage involving peers and relatives, etc.]

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, because there is no authority except from God, and those who (not "that") exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 Rulers are not a terror "to" [against] good conduct, but to/against bad. Would you have no fear of him [not "her"] who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his [male gender] approval,
4 because he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he [not Judge Jeannie] does not bear the sword in vain; he [not Hillary Clinton] is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

And why do we sin? Because we are tempted and live in an environment of tempters who tempt us to stumble into sin? Who deprives us of our basic needs, especially sexual ones, because of their tyrannical, legalistic, narrow-minded, and prejudicial suppressive restrictiveness?

Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world for temptations to sin! It is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man [or immodestly-misattired woman] by whom the temptation comes!

Luke 17:1 And He said to His disciples: "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him/her by whom they come!"

Being that God imposed the Tempter into an otherwise perfect Garden of Eden, is God to blame for thus causing temptation, or at least being partly responsible for it being a problem?

James 1:13 Let no one say when they are tempted: "I am tempted by God", because God cannot be [rather: is not] tempted with evil and He Himself tempts no one,
James 1:14 but each person is tempted when they are lured and enticed by their own desire.

But wasn't it God's fault that He imposed the Tempter in the Garden, and was not it necessary for Him to thus provide a Contingency Plan in case His human creatures were tempted by that Tempter and gave in to deception from that Tempter?

Affirmative, as the Bible states:

Romans 11:32 God has consigned all humans to disobedience, that He may have [benevolent] mercy upon all (even though most on the broad and easy road to destruction will not respond positively to that mercy).

That God-is-partly-to-blame concept is found elsewhere in the Bible:

Galatians 3:21 Is the Law then against the promises of God? Certainly not, because if Law [and perfect obedience to such] had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the Law.
Galatians 3:22 But the scripture consigned all things to sin, that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who "believe." [believe WHAT? Believe that they can eagerly live like the Devil, hate and despise and disregard the Law as no longer applicable in any way, and yet be forgiven by the grace of God through faith in Christ?]

The question then is is it advisable to avoid the God who allowed temptation (and even imposed the Serpent-and-Tree sources of it in the Garden), and/or avoid the Tempter and human tempters who directly tempts us?

After all,

First Corinthians 15:33 Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals." [whether that "company" includes the Lord Who Imposed Temptation in the Garden, Satan, satanic humans who disobey and like to disobey the Law?]

But Scripture tells us that not only does God come to us . . .

First John 4:19 We love, because He first loved us.

. . . we need to go (not come) to Him:

Psalm 105:4 Seek the LORD and His strength, seek His presence continually!

Amos 5:6 Seek the LORD and live, lest He break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and it devour, with none to quench it for Bethel

Zephaniah 2:3 Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, who do His commands; seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the wrath of the LORD.

First Peter 2:4 Go to Him, to that living stone, rejected by humans but in God's sight chosen and precious

To repeat, does it really matter if evil works instead of good works are done for those who simply "believe in Jesus?"


Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

There seems to be a non-resolvable conflict or even contradiction inherent within the two seemingly discrepant Bible verses:

(1) Galatians 2:16 . . . a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by [doing good or doing evil?] works of the Law, because by [righteous, or wicked?] works of the Law shall no one be justified.

(2) James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by [doing good, or instead doing evil?] works and not by faith alone.
James 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

A blasphemously-reviling heretic might retort:

"Then, to be justified (or saved, if you will), we have to either offer our son on the altar, or become a harlot, or do both?"


Second Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Second Peter 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
Second Peter 3:16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Let's descend down into the dangerous realm of the defensively-protective mothering instinct: "Are newborn babes despicably wicked, or instead pleasantly righteous?"

Romans 9:3 I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by blood descendancy.
4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the worship, and the promises;
5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.
6 But it is not as though the word of God had failed, because not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named."
8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants,
9 because this is what the promise said: "About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son."
10 And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man [not "woman"], our forefather [not foremother] Isaac,
11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, so that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of His call,
12 she was told: "The elder will serve the younger." [inheritance problem?]
13 As it is written: "Jacob [who wanted God's blessing] I loved, but [despising-birthright not-deserving-Dad's-Blessing irreligious] Esau I hated."
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!

Verse 11 of the Scripture snippet above answers the question of whether or not infants are good or evil.

They are neither, but only in one sense.

To ascertain whether most womb babes, newly-born infants, toddlers, and older kids are basically evil, contrast the above Scripture to:

Psalm 58:3 The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies.

Proverbs 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.
Isaiah 48:8 You have never heard, you have never known, from of old your ear has not been opened, because I knew that you would deal very treacherously, and that from birth you were called a rebel.

"Go astray from birth? "From birth called a rebel?" So they are really evil.

Seond Peter 2:12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed, reviling in matters of which they are ignorant, will be destroyed in the same destruction with them.

"Born to be caught and killed." Sound like they are evil.

Punishment against such deviant perverts is swift and certain:

Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them,
19 then his/her father and his mother shall take hold of him/her and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he/she lives,
20 and they shall say to the elders of his city: 'This our son/daughter is stubborn and rebellious, he/she will not obey our voice; he/she is a glutton and a drunkard.'
21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him/her to death with stones (or the cops shall shoot him-or-her dead); so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
22 And if a man/woman has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him/her on a tree (easier than electrocution or lethal injection),
23 his/her body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him/her the same day, for a hanged man/woman is accursed by God; you shall not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.

Him/Her? Equal rights for equal wrongs. Equal Opportunity!

Psalm 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

But not all babes are evil.

Judges 13:5 . . . you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from birth; and he (without feminist-commanderess-and-judge Deborah) shall begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines."

Psalm 71:6 Upon you I have leaned from my birth; you are He who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you.

Isaiah 44:2 Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you: Fear not, Jake my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen.

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Is caesarian surgery implied by the following?

Isaiah 66:7 "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son." [What the fk does THAT mean]

Idolatrous craziness below:

Jeremiah 2:27 . . . who say to a tree, 'You are my father,' and to a stone, 'You gave me birth.' They have turned their back to me, and not their face. But in the time of their trouble they say: "Get up and save us!'

How about implied illegitimacy and child neglect?

Ezekiel 16:3 . . . and say, Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite, and your mother a Hittite.
Ezekiel 16:4 And as for your birth, on the day you were born your navel string was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor swathed with bands.
Ezekiel 16:7 and grow up like a plant of the field.' And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full maidenhood; your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare.

The appearance of immoral premarital pregnancy?

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before "they came together" (graphically overly-explicit?) she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.

Congenital or forced impotence?

Matthew 19:12 There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

"Perpetual virginity of Mary?"

Luke 2:7 And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the motel.

Why not info about the second-born son? Or simply state "her one and only son" ever [for the purported "perpertual virgin"? - with the presumption and not assumption that Mary had only one offspring? Or even "daughter"?] [Aren't females important also, or shall we presume misogyny]?

Mark 3:31 His mother and His brothers came; and standing outside they sent to Him and called Him.
Luke 8:20 And He was told: "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you."

What? Jesus had no sisters? Was it His fault, or the fault of Mary, and/or Joseph?

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.

I spoke too soon. Christ indeed had inferior-gender sibs. Mary was obviously "consummated" by Joseph (or possibly whoever) to produce such contemporaries to Christ, but Jesus was the only mini-male in history to have bloodied the hymen of a woman from the inside out instead of from the outside in.

So WHY do infants cry? Simply because they are malicious terrorists who, for no apparent cause at all, do not restrain themselves from forcefully and frequently bawling?

If they are too warm, they cry. If too cold, they cry. If tired, they cry. If dropped, they cry. If bored, they cry. If it is too noisy, or too silent for too long, they cry. If stung by a bee, they cry. If hot water is spilled on them, or they touch a hot iron or stove burner, they cry. If their diapers are too tight, or wet with urine or saturated with poop, they cry. If they feel isolated and deserted without being affectionately held and tenderly caressed, they cry. If battered, they cry. If anything disturbs them which they detect with their five senses, they cry.

I was proficient at it. You also?

Sometimes, crying is an expression of selfishness. Of being "spoiled". Not "getting their own way". Balking at discipline. Being a little bastard or bitch.

Proverbs 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a [shrieking, loud-mouthed, sobbing, whining, mouthing-off] child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.
But, is ALL bawling and wailing "sin" on their part which they are to blame and at fault for? Heck, needs are not being met! To blame is the fault of negligent others who inadequately do not provide sufficiently for them?

And then scoffers wonder why even deprived Christians reluctantly stumble into sin, under satanic needs-denied duress and desperation . . . faithlessly not believing that the Lord will provide sufficiently and on time, with themselves impulsively and impetuously and impatiently taking matters into their own diversionary hands in regretful but pseudo-expedient piss-not-pop/poop-not pudding-ingesting pollutive ways. Why stuff ourselves with past-the-expiration-date spoiled dogfood when we could instead have tender-and-juicy well-done-but-not-tough porterhouse/T-bone sirloin steak?

Do whimpering or shrieking babes and their thoughtless parents [either cowards afraid of disciplining because of being demonically accused of "child abuse" or selfish show-offs who crave attention by means of their misbehaving offspring] know that others are disturbed and irritated when infants and toddlers cry? Or worse, satanically shriek at maximum surprise-attack volume with a demon internally driving them to such violence? Do they care? Are they capable of caring? Does their outbursts or lack of public-tranquility discipline help the situation out? Does it actually solve anything to set oneself (and/or others) on fire or bomb or fatally spray gunfire around against innocent bystanders?

But those called by God, evidenced by them having conceived children and thus automatically commissioned to be responsible caretakers of babe persons both inside and outside the womb (see the Greek-Text word brephos for BOTH inside-womb pre-born John in Luke 1:41 and outside-womb-in-manger already-born Jesus in Luke 2:16), are Divinely-appointed caregivers and providers for questionably-bawling babes.

Considering the intricate and crucial anatomical, non-evolutionary-chanced, on-time/everything-working-all-at-once change of circulatory system of babe persons having eternal souls within wombs, contrasted to their circulatory system outside the womb when born, the following is applicably descriptive:

Psalm 139:13 You did form my inward parts, you did knit me (with capillaries, veins, arteries, muscle tissue, heart and umbilical valves, more) together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, because you are fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are your works! You know me quite well;
15 my frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of earth-mommy.
16 Your eyes perceived my not-yet-formed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.

In Genesis chapter two, we have the following obviously non-mythical non-symbolic non-allegorical non-metaphorical historical record:

Genesis 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17 but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall not eat, because in the day that you eat of it you shall die."
18 Then the LORD God said: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."

But the import of verse 18 sort of "flies in the face of" the following:

First Corinthians 7:27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.
First Corinthians 7:38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Hence, the NIV mistranslation of First Corinthians 7:1 misstating: 'It is good to not marry' or as other mistranslations put it: "it is good to not have sexual relations with a woman."

with mis-applied reference to:

Exodus 19:15 And he said to the people: "Be ready by the third day; do not go near a woman."

Like contagious bacteria, or cancer-causing radioactivity?

. . . but all of which no-helpmate-needed-nor-wanted intentions of God and men contradicts:

Proverbs 18:22 He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the LORD.
First Timothy 5:14-15 [KJV] So I would have younger women marry, birth children, manage their households, and give the enemy no cause to revile us. For some have already strayed after Satan.
Hebrews 13:4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be non-defiled; for God will judge fornicators and the adulterous.

If soon-enough marriage is not done, and priests are forbidden from marrying, clearly violating:

First Timothy 3:2 Now a [male-only, of course] bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher [not so, O High-Priest-Reminiscent Bishop-of-Rome Pope?]
First Timothy 3:12 Let deacons be the [obviously-male-only] husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well.

. . . then priests molest altar boys, and the result?

Romans 2:24 As it is written: "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

And the entire Catholic Church is disgraced.

Genesis 2:19 So out of the [inanimate] ground (not out of sea slime over zillions of years) the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name [including long-lettered Latin ones?]
20 The [zookeeper] man gave names to all cattle [don't forget buffalo and other similar mammals], and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.
21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept [deep near-unconscious Divine anesthesia?] took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh [not with stitches, in that case];
22 and the Rib which the LORD God had taken from the man He made into a woman and brought her to the man. [makes sense: man from ground dust, woman from rib, and she does look sleek and shapely like a former rib] [PRIME Rib!]
23 Then the man declared: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother [which neither Adam nor Eve had] and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh [one manifestation called: baby dumpling].
25 And the man and his wife were both naked [latest up-to-date all-season style and fashion], and were not ashamed [nor inconvenienced for harmless gardening, bathing, urinating and defecating, hiking, jogging, if-I-win-you-win game playing, full-body kissing, holding, massaging copulation, future climbs to Mount Everest, walks on the Moon, scuba diving, skydiving, etc.].

But, alas, the First Lady got everyone into trouble, yet a Jewish Woman virgin (bearing the God/Man Jesus) got a few of us out of trouble, and the remainder will burn suspended airless in the tormenting invisible flames of the Lake of Fire in Outer Darkness forever.

Yet, even pertaining to the penitent God-loving Eve (and her inferior-gender proceeding ilk) who stated: "I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord" the menstration-inception/increased-conception/childbirth-pain plus "your husband shall rule over you" curses for impudent chauvinistic disobedience in Eden resulted in:

First Timothy 2:11 Have a woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent,
13 because Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with discretionary sensible sobermindedness.

Several things of interest can be ascertained by the account of Adam, Eve, the Serpent, Eve, Adam, and God in Genesis chapters 2 and 3 as to answering the query of whether people are intrinsically good or instead evil or both, merely born into sin through no fault of their own, and why -- as to what internally and/or externally motivates or incites them to contemplate and behave or misbehave as they do.

Why did Eve decide to disobediently sin in the Garden of Eden? Was she a diabolically malicious adversarial enemy against God her Creator deep down, and hell-bent on thumbing her nose at Him or lifting up her third finger at Him whenever she could?

If Snakey the Tempter had not seduced her into sinning, would she have inevitably decided to grasp and eventually (even because of investigative curiosity, unaware of unforeseen and not-yet-experienced consequences) taken the Forbidden Fruit of the Lethal Tree in The Garden without being satanically incited to do that?

When tempters and temptation is completely removed from redeemed voluntarily-penitent saints in heavenly glory, will they choose to initiate or repeat deviant misbehavior of even the slightest type at any time in eternity -- in their case, having remembered what disasterous consequences such sinning had to painfully disrupt and destroy themselves and others during their temporal lives?

Back to God creating a compatible live-action humanoid (not sexbot mannequin) for Adam in the first place.

Bestiality for Adam was not an acceptable option for either God nor Adam. Reproductive impossibility due to physiological or anatomical disparity of whatever other diverse creatures concerning non-compatible apparatus and appearance of from-the-ground-formed lower lifeforms was neither sexy to him nor was erotically stimulating.

Even constructing another male human for Adam would have been a repulsively revulsive and even noxious extinction-destined downer. . . as is frigid feminist sexism, pregnancy-preventing "birth" "control" [ having nothing to do with controlling birth], anti-creationist heretically-anti-Genesis evolutionary fairy-tale mythology.

Nothing like a beautifully-faced/impeccably-shapely, top-of-the-line/hot-off-the-press-equivalent, fully-naked-and-barefooted woman to get him aroused for potential progeny production.

And -- right from the start -- why is that "wife" term used without mention of a government Marriage License, along with Adam's very-brief-and-concise "bone-of-my-bone/name-that-cutie" quickie-courtship-and-betrothal declaration (without Eve's response mentioned) culminating with reference to love-at-first-sight mutual innocent nudity mentioned in the last verse of Genesis chapter 2?

Was the nudity, and mention of that in the Bible, gutter-minded dirty and licentiously filthy printed and real-life exhibitionism? Public-nuisance lewd and indecent conduct for them being and mentioning them being in the buff?

Plainly put, was God into pornography? A perv?

Was Isaiah a pervert telling the virgin daughter of Babylon to strip off her robe and uncover her legs as she waded in the water so that her nakedness was uncovered and her shame seen, within the Isaiah 47:1-4 Scripture passage?

Was the temperature in the Garden of Eden a comfortably constant 70 to 72 degrees F. without the all-nude couple getting chilled at night in the insects-free cooperative-gentle-animals-containing environment? It is hard to imagine lying in grass on the ground without harassive mosquitos and ants infesting the place.

Well, being that she was automatically "his wife" from the beginning, no harlots nor fornication nor adultery nor same-gender-homosexual/bestiality/self-abusive masturbational sodomy were involved.

Who married them as spouses in the first place? Was there no premarital counseling nor wedding? Sounds like permanent, consensual cohabitational, concubine-like, common-law-equivalent, heterosexual togetherness to me.

If Mr and Mrs Adamsky thereafter had had not sinned, thus continued on clothes-free au naturale, pumping out always-bare children and toddlers and teens and older into a sinless naturist-naked society, what would have been the inclusively-diversified global-community result? What would illegal aliens have thought, had there been any?

Which brings us to that part of the Creation Account of interest for this mini-dissertation:

Genesis 3:1 Now The Serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made [GOD made and imposed the wild-creature stumbling-block A-hole in an otherwise-perfect Garden?]. Satan [in deep bass non-tenor voice?] said to the woman: "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?"
2 And the [soprano/alto?] woman did NOT reply to The Snake: "I am too scared to just ignore and disregard you impolitely, snakey, and too frightened to tell you to get lost" but instead DID respond: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the Garden;
3 but God said: 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle (or "midst" - if you prefer) of the Garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"
4 But The Serpent said to the woman: "You will not die.
5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both were opened [ouch!], and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons [front and back outfits? more on the top for Eve? how about socks and shoes, or boots?].

"Subtle" is the word used by the RSV for verse 1 above. "Cunning" is used by other translations. "Sneaky" is my suggestion.

DID "God know" what Satan (in the passage above) said God knows? How, or even does, Satan actually know what God knows?

It is plain that the tempting serpent was a dishonest liar as to what brainwashing proselytizing propaganda he imposed to and against Eve without her pre-meditated nor deliberately-aggressive solicitation. It is assumed that she was innocently wandering or roaming around the Garden, and happened to come into the presence of Snakey.

Was that her fault that she encountered and confronted the Devil? Continued vain chatting with and pseudo-philanthropically trying to educate him? Craving Brownie points of commendation from him desired by her? Wanting to quasi-patronize him presuming that she herself was a [naive, ill-prepared] "I-can-take-him-on" pompous-ego missionaryette?

In the wayward spirit of "Immodest-live-person-porn-does-not-bother-me, I-can-take-it-without-it-affecting-me" presumption?

The answer is important, in terms of ultimate judgment decided upon and put into effect by the impartial and fair-minded Lord of Creation.

Proverbs 22:3 A prudent man sees danger and hides himself; but the gullible go on, and suffer for it.
Proverbs 27:12 A prudent man sees danger and hides himself; but the naive go on, and suffer for it.

Romans 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties [such as Snakey in the Garden], in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

First Corinthians 10:9 We must not put the Lord to the test [by conversing with the Devil], as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents

Ephesians 5:7 Therefore do not associate with them

Second Timothy 2:14 Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

Titus 3:2 . . . speak evil of no one [included the Devil who Christ called a hypocritical blind-fool murderer and liar from the beginning?], to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect overturn-the-moneychangers-table courtesy toward all serpents (excuse me, I meant: men).

Titus 3:9 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over [Don't-Eat-The-Forbidden-Fruit] Law, because they are unprofitable and futile.

Second John 1:7 Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8 Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.
9 Anyone who goes ahead and does not reside in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he/she who remains in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him/her into the house or give him-or-her any greeting,
11 because he/she who greets him-or-her shares his/her wicked work.

All are NOT welcome here! (contrary to a lot of lawn signs observable around the neighborhoods)

The text does not say whether Adam was with her at the time of dialoging with the Devil, near her, away doing gardening, relieving himself somewhere, exploring his botanical or other surroundings, or whatever . . . nor was it evil for him to not be with her then, if such was the case. He sure wasn't shopping for tampons.

The doubt-causing Tempter said to Eve what he puts into the mind of us all: "DID God say you shall not EAT of ANY tree in the Garden?"

No, He did NOT say that, nor anything like that, nor anything that even came close to that.

The "DID God say..." phrase was not an outright lie, but a suggestion of doubt, intending to cause confusion and uncertainty.

The phrase: "ANY tree of..." was overbroad, and involving us, turns out to have many different applications, such as: "you will never get a Christian spouse to do cunnilingus or fellatio or coitus with unless you do it with a hired escort or masseuse, or rape" or "you must FOREVER abstain from ALL sex" or "you will never get that job or money unless you lie or steal it" or whatever, ad infinitum.

Then came the half-LIE . . . not the half-"truth" -- of: "You will not die."

Wrong on two counts!

First, the moment Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit, her bodily DNA immediately started mis-replicating and errantly mis-aligning -- an irrevocable sequence of catastrophic microbiological disarray, causing her to start aging which would eventually result in her death.

Next, the Tempter was guilty of miss-the-point diversional irrationalization of saying nothing to do with actually proving his faulty premise that she would not even begin to slowly die. What has "eyes being opened and being like God knowing good and evil" have to do with proving or insuring that she allegedly would not die? [An illogical disconnect!]

WAS there some hidden non-specific read-between-the-lines inference which we all missed in all that?

So again, Satan was overbroad and thus imposing not a half-truth but a half-lie.

Admittedly, Eve did not immediately die completely then and there on the spot. But she started to, right off.

What The Devil SHOULD have said was: "You will not completely die immediately after you eat the Forbidden Fruit of the Lethal Tree.

Now comes the perplexing statement:

Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

Adam's allegiance to his wife overruled his allegiance to God and God's command to not poison himself, no matter what the cowardly-caving-in-to-feminist-chauvinism excuse.

Genesis 3:17 And to Adam [God] said: "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in consternated/sweaty labor you shall eat of it all the days of your life

Courageous holy defiance against feminist demands can bring persecution:

Genesis 39:10 And although [Potipher's wife] spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not listen to her, to lie with her or to be with her. [So she complained with a false Me-Too sexual-assault accusation, for which Joe the Jew was imprisoned]

Job 2:10 But harassed-by-Satan Job replied to [his wife]: "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Matthew 1:20 But as Joseph considered divorcing pregnant Mary who he had not had copulative coitus with, hey, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary who is your wife already (not fiancee nor girlfriend), because He who is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit

Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, cannot be My disciple."

[ Of course, "hate" does not mean hate. Nor does "love" mean love. Mere mild and gentle disapproval for hate? Simply casual tolerance for love? No?]

First Corinthians 7:16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

Second Corinthians 6:14 Do not be mismated with disbelievers [having never believed, in contrast to "un"-believers who once believed but no longer believe], because what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

In WHOSE opinion was "the tree" (assuming the fruit thereof) supposedly "good for food?"

In the estimation of the Spirit and Biblical author who recorded the quietly-disasterous-and-horrendous incident . . . or Eve's . . . or Satan . . . or everyone?

By his comments of insinuating Eve was deplorably and immaturely/not-adult-yet blind having eyes not yet opened, and stupid for not knowing the "precious" knowledge of good and evil which God exclusively knew, leaving her clueless, the Tempter was actually intimidating Eve. Making her feel inadequate. Not coming up to speed. Unworthy. The Devil inferred that she was dumb . . . stupid . . . with the strange assertion that she would "die" (whatever the fk "die" meant having never occurred previously) as she was in her "unacceptable non-enlightenment" . . . not having yet eaten what would make her "honorably wise and admirably qualified to be respected" [to presume that from Satan's point of view]

Besides, who would not want to "be like God" in the sense of partnering with Him, being a member of His family, and being with Him on His own terms, bonding with Him on His own level? [Again, said from Satan's perspective]

Perhaps we all would have agreed that the fruit of the tree, if not also the tree itself, was indeed "a delight to the eyes." Some trees and their fruit are, in fact, delightful to view. But aren't they're all accursed sinful objects? Like tobacco or marijuana plants in the field, radioactive uranium dispersed in the open plains out West, seawater which cannot be ingested, cliffs which one can fall off of, rocks one can bash people with, lake water one can drown people in, sunlight one can get scorched by, and erupting lava one can fall into?

No comparison?

"The tree" (or the "fruit" of the tree) was desired to make one "wise"?

And what is meant by "wise?" Was there a disconnect differentiating "wisdom" - from "knowledge" or "awareness?" In whose opinion was getting "wisdom," or becoming "smart," the effect of ingesting the Forbidden Fruit?

The Spirit's and/or the inspired author of Genesis? Satan's? Eve's opinion included, or rather alone by herself?

Is the best word to use: "wise" or instead: "knowledgeable?"

Ecclesiastes 1:18 In much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

Curiosity sometimes kills the cat, as the expression goes.

"Is that porno website still as bad as it always was? I HAS to know." The question is: "Do you feel lucky? Well, DO you, punk?

Deuteronomy 1:39 Moreover your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall go in there, and to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Ecclesiastes 2:26 To the man who pleases Him God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy; but to the sinner He gives the work of gathering and heaping, only to give to one who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after wind.

Romans 3:20 No human being will be atoned for in God's sight by performing or committing either good or evil works of or against the Law, being that through the Law comes knowledge of sin.
Second Timothy 3:7 [beware of those, especially women] who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

Titus 1:1 and Philemon 1:6 I am Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness, pray that the [ACLU/PAW/AUSCS/SPLC-ignoring] sharing of your faith may promote the knowledge of all the good that is ours in Christ.

Hebrews 10:26 If we willfully sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice [of Christ's death on a cross for us] against sins [applicable to us], but a fearful prospect of judgment and fury of fire . . .

Forget "once saved, always saved."

Second Peter 1:2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
1:3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence,
1:5 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge,
1:8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2:20 If, after we have escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for us than the first.
3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.