₦airaland Forum

MeetDx:
Gospel of the serpent seed. This clearly shows that the first sin was fornication; which obviously happened between the serpent and Eve before she went home and taught her husband (Adam). This also is a clear indication that the serpent was humanoid before he was cursed to crawl on his belly (Genesis 3:14). Carry on brah! Knowing the truth will make us free, isn't it?

Proverb 30:20

Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.

The 1st sin was disobedience, stop twisting the gospel to fit your narative.

Stop deceiving yourself

jesusjnr:
Breasts, Pen!s, Nipples, Hips, Ovaries, Sperm, Scrotum, Uterus, Vagina, Testicles, Ova, Vulva, Hymen, Clitoris, buttocks and em, em...

Are you still there?

If yes, how do you feel hearing or rather seeing these words?

If uncomfortable, awkward, uneasy and jittery etc., as if you entered the wrong place and about to take off, then there is only one word responsible for that feeling, and it is called lust.

Because all those things I mentioned there are normal things for there's absolutely nothing wrong with them, but it's only lust that makes them to seem otherwise and as though they were evil and of the devil, and meant to cause harm and damage.

For before the coming of lust into the equation of God's creation, it was said:

Genesis 1:31 (KJV)

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Now of course, I had to embolden the word everything for emphasis, for everything that God had made in the beginning inclusive of all those sexual and reproductive organs etc., i mentioned above was not just good in the sight of God but very good.

And that was not only so in God's sight but also the view of man and woman when God first created them, for all those parts were very good in their sight and that's why it was said of them:

Genesis 2:25 (KJV)

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

So the reason they were not ashamed of those body parts, even though they were naked was because they didn't see it as evil or a bad thing but as a good thing.

Therefore it was a good thing until lust happened as it was said:

Genesis 3:7 (KJV)


And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

So that was the moment they began to see those said parts of their body as a bad and evil thing, and hence something to be ashamed of. And it was lust that was responsible for that change in their view about those said body parts, that the once good thing in their sight now appeared to them to be evil.

Of course lust was a consequence of their disobedience of the commandment of God, and it was so bad to the extent that even when God their Creator sought for them, it was said:

Genesis 3:8-10 (KJV)

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, "Where art thou?"
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

So lust had made them to not only be ashamed of such body parts before themselves, for now extented the resulting shame to God their Creator, even the one who made those said parts of their body, that they were now hiding themselves from Him.

So it shouldn't be surprising the extent of the disappointment of their Creator to such a development that led Him to asked them this very question:

"...Who told thee that thou wast naked?..." Genesis 3:11 (KJV)

The simple answer to that question is, it was lust.

To be continued.

Thunder � lust

WELL SINCE LUST IS INEVITABLE IN AN IMPERFECT WORLD THEN STOP NUDITY.

Nothing is a problem, just your money and life force trading....

Enjoy your sins.

MeetDx:
Eve and the serpent committed fornication first, before she introduces her husband into it; that's how bad sleeping with an adulterous woman is! Adam knew she had loss her innocence to the serpent but still went on polluting himself with her, thereby participating her sin!

snake shagg Eve?

babyfaceafrica:
the OP is just talking to himself...hope he is good?

Then how did you hear me?

Hope you're good too?

Let's not deceive ourselves. The clothes one put on MATTER! BIG TIME. Can OP allow a naked woman walk about his bedroom simply because he has "no lust for her"?

Furthermore, The way a female reacts to body of a naked male is definitely not the same vice versa. Its no surprise the emphasis is on the females:

In a like manner that WOMEN adorn themselves in modest apparel 1 Tim 2:9-10
(Capitalization mine)

See also 1 Peter 3:3

I certainly don't deny the place of lust, which is why even parts of the country where women are covered head to toe, we still hear of molestation cases.

However it will be an error to downplay the impact of proper dressing, particularly - but not exclusively - for females. Churches have strict rules on dressing for a reason

Truest

jesusjnr:
Therefore the clothes was the next thing that God had made on earth after observing His rest from His work of creation on the seventh day.

However unlike in the instance where after God had seen everything that He had made in the beginning, inclusive of such body parts, when it was said that it was very good in His sight, nothing was said about what God had thought of the clothes that He had made to cover such body parts as a result of lust becoming a factor in man's judgment of them.

But it's pretty obvious that they wouldn't have very good in His sight as much as those body parts that they covered, despite that He was the one that also made them, because when He first made those body parts, He never intended to also make clothes to hide and cover them up just because of something called lust.

For He intended for those body parts to uncovered and unhidden, such as the woman's breasts which He had made for the breastfeeding of her new born child.

For the woman breastfeeding her new born child was supposed to be a normal and very good thing which she wasn't supposed to be ashamed of.

But now with lust becoming a factor in their judgment, in spite of how essential breastfeeding is with respect to a newborn child, a woman cannot comfortably breastfeed her newborn child anywhere, any time, any how, whenever the need arises for the new born to be breastfed.

But has to hide or cover her breast from the view of the public eye, in order for it to be able to serve it's own purpose for which it was made by God, because of the single factor of lust.

That's just one instance of such to give an idea of the extent to which lust altered the original intention of God, for mankind. Therefore clothes was definitely not on God's original menu for mankind nor His solution to the problem created by lust for man, but just a damage limitational measure.

That's why there are yet sexual sins and immorality even in instances where people are fully clothed, because as long as there is lust, wearing of clothes would not completely solve the problem of sexual sins, even though it might reduce the extent of it.

Therefore the solution to the problem of sexual Immorality has never been the wearing of clothes to cover one's unclothedness, but the ridding of its root cause, even lust which is responsible for the erroneous judgment of such body parts, as evil. For only then would the problem be completely solved.

Hence it wasn't surprising that while many humans had settled for clothes as the solution to the problems of sexual sins and immorality brought upon humanity by lust, as though it was the way God intended for it to be from the onset, when God came to the Earth in the form of man, in the person of Jesus, He said:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

So there was God using the opportunity He had craved from the beginning to address the issue of sexual sins and immorality once and for all. For it was not about if a person was with or without clothing, and those particular body parts being covered or not being covered, but about lust, for that was the root cause of all sexually related sins.

Therefore it was that root cause that needed to be destroyed, for once that happens, sexual immorality and all sex related sins and violence etc. that only existed because of that root becomes history.

And this knowledge was very important as it was one of the things that made Jesus to be an all rounder when it came to the temptations of Satan.

And why Satan was not able to find any thing in Him, regardless of however he came to him, or whichever tactics he used, for even if he brought naked women to Jesus view, it was impossible to get Jesus to fall into temptation.

Why? Because Jesus didn't depend on women wearing clothes for Him not to fall into temptation, for lust was not at all a factor in His judgment of those body parts, so that even if they were naked and had all such usually covered body parts hanging out, just as it was in the beginning when it was said that God saw all that He had made, in the sight of Jesus it would be "behold, it was very good".

Therefore that was what made Jesus to be invincible in that aspect of His human life, and hence it was the same mindset and orientation that He tried to build His disciples with, before He gave them this instruction:

"...Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Mark 16:15 (KJV)

For the world that He was sending them out to was not a group of people packed into a building whose actions they could regulate to suit their own standard and desire, but to a people outside the building whose ways was beyond and outside their control.

Therefore they needed to be prepared for anything, any situation, and whatever came with the world unto whom they had been sent.

So that regardless of how the enemy chooses to come to tempt them, even if it was through people who are not covering those body parts with clothes, and are naked, either deliberately or otherwise, he would not find anything in them, because they are as their Creator and their Master in that respect, and hence in their sight, it would be "behold, it was very good".

So that's the real solution to all sexual immorality, sexual related sins and violence, and not the wearing of clothes which was just a damage limitational measure, for once lust which is the original source of those problems is gotten rid of, all of such issues which only survives and lives by it, would have no choice but to also follow suit.

Therefore for all those of the church who have become so adapted to the wearing of clothes as if that was God's original plan for humanity, and hence want to hinge the blame of any sexual immorality or related sins they commit or fall into on nudity and not lust, it's important that they came to the knowledge of this Truth of Christ the founder of the church, which didn't put the blame of sexual immorality and sins on nudity, but on lust.

For without lust, nudity is nothing.

The end.

Good topic. Thanks OP. Are you depressed? Solution to depression: https://www.nairaland.com/5133117/only-true-way-out-depression#77524811

Though I didnt bother to read that gibberish but most times nuditity brings about lust. A man will be on his own thinking something important but the moment he sees a nude woman, lust comes

Nudity is the problem
You lust after what you see, then all sort of imagination follows

alezzy13:
Let's not deceive ourselves. The clothes one put on MATTER! BIG TIME. Can OP allow a naked woman walk about his bedroom simply because he has "no lust for her"?

Furthermore, The way a female reacts to body of a naked male is definitely not the same vice versa. Its no surprise the emphasis is on the females:

In a like manner that WOMEN adorn themselves in modest apparel 1 Tim 2:9-10

See also 1 Peter 3:3

I certainly don't deny the place of lust, which is why even parts of the country where women are covered head to toe, we still hear of molestation cases.

However it will be an error to downplay the impact of proper dressing, particularly - but not exclusively - for females. Churches have strict rules on dressing for a reason

Can you go to a village where they are naked and you cannot dress the opposite sex to preach the gospel of Jesus?

If not, then you have a serious issue that would make you not to be fully obedient to the commandment of Jesus.

For Jesus said go into the world and preach the gospel, not to where you are able to dress the people, or where people are dressed.

You shouldn't settle for lust, because that's what you do when you depend on people dressing up for you not to fall into sin.

Imagine how ridiculous it would be if because a woman was necessarily breastfeeding her baby you fell into such temptation.

So this is not against people dressing up, but people depending on people dressing up not to fall into temptation, and sin against God, for I am not naked myself and would advise people to do same because God had a good reason to clothe man and woman after lust came into the equation, even though it wasn't what He originally intended for man.

So that's not the point here but that it is not the solution to the problem of sexual immorality, even though it limits the damage, for the solution is that which Jesus gave, which is not lusting after the opposite sex even in our hearts, is the only solution to the lust problem.

And it behoves every true disciple of Jesus to observe it.

Always read your bible very well before u start preaching....After the fall of man in the garden of Eden, God made cloth for man to cover his unclothedness, because God in his infinite wisdom, knew what the consequences of nudilty will be......the great Evangelist Billy Graham was driven through a street where naked women poster where placed every where, he closed his eyes.....the spirit of lust is activate when you continue looking at naked pictures of women as a man or naked pictures of men as a woman.

jesusjnr:
Therefore the clothes was the next thing that God had made on earth after observing His rest from His work of creation on the seventh day.]

However unlike in the instance where after God had seen everything that He had made in the beginning, inclusive of such body parts, when it was said that it was very good in His sight, nothing was said about what God had thought of the clothes that He had made to cover such body parts as a result of lust becoming a factor in man's judgment of them.

But it's pretty obvious that they wouldn't have very good in His sight as much as those body parts that they covered, despite that He was the one that also made them, because when He first made those body parts, He never intended to also make clothes to hide and cover them up just because of something called lust.

For He intended for those body parts to uncovered and unhidden, such as the woman's breasts which He had made for the breastfeeding of her new born child.

For the woman breastfeeding her new born child was supposed to be a normal and very good thing which she wasn't supposed to be ashamed of.

But now with lust becoming a factor in their judgment, in spite of how essential breastfeeding is with respect to a newborn child, a woman cannot comfortably breastfeed her newborn child anywhere, any time, any how, whenever the need arises for the new born to be breastfed.

But has to hide or cover her breast from the view of the public eye, in order for it to be able to serve it's own purpose for which it was made by God, because of the single factor of lust.

That's just one instance of such to give an idea of the extent to which lust altered the original intention of God, for mankind. Therefore clothes was definitely not on God's original menu for mankind nor His solution to the problem created by lust for man, but just a damage limitational measure.

That's why there are yet sexual sins and immorality even in instances where people are fully clothed, because as long as there is lust, wearing of clothes would not completely solve the problem of sexual sins, even though it might reduce the extent of it.

Therefore the solution to the problem of sexual Immorality has never been the wearing of clothes to cover one's unclothedness, but the ridding of its root cause, even lust which is responsible for the erroneous judgment of such body parts, as evil. For only then would the problem be completely solved.

Hence it wasn't surprising that while many humans had settled for clothes as the solution to the problems of sexual sins and immorality brought upon humanity by lust, as though it was the way God intended for it to be from the onset, when God came to the Earth in the form of man, in the person of Jesus, He said:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

So there was God using the opportunity He had craved from the beginning to address the issue of sexual sins and immorality once and for all. For it was not about if a person was with or without clothing, and those particular body parts being covered or not being covered, but about lust, for that was the root cause of all sexually related sins.

Therefore it was that root cause that needed to be destroyed, for once that happens, sexual immorality and all sex related sins and violence etc. that only existed because of that root becomes history.

And this knowledge was very important as it was one of the things that made Jesus to be an all rounder when it came to the temptations of Satan.

And why Satan was not able to find any thing in Him, regardless of however he came to him, or whichever tactics he used, for even if he brought naked women to Jesus view, it was impossible to get Jesus to fall into temptation.

Why? Because Jesus didn't depend on women wearing clothes for Him not to fall into temptation, for lust was not at all a factor in His judgment of those body parts, so that even if they were naked and had all such usually covered body parts hanging out, just as it was in the beginning when it was said that God saw all that He had made, in the sight of Jesus it would be "behold, it was very good".

Therefore that was what made Jesus to be invincible in that aspect of His human life, and hence it was the same mindset and orientation that He tried to build His disciples with, before He gave them this instruction:

"...Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Mark 16:15 (KJV)

For the world that He was sending them out to was not a group of people packed into a building whose actions they could regulate to suit their own standard and desire, but to a people outside the building whose ways was beyond and outside their control.

Therefore they needed to be prepared for anything, any situation, and whatever came with the world unto whom they had been sent.

So that regardless of how the enemy chooses to come to tempt them, even if it was through people who are not covering those body parts with clothes, and are naked, either deliberately or otherwise, he would not find anything in them, because they are as their Creator and their Master in that respect, and hence in their sight, it would be "behold, it was very good".

So that's the real solution to all sexual immorality, sexual related sins and violence, and not the wearing of clothes which was just a damage limitational measure, for once lust which is the original source of those problems is gotten rid of, all of such issues which only survives and lives by it, would have no choice but to also follow suit.

Therefore for all those of the church who have become so adapted to the wearing of clothes as if that was God's original plan for humanity, and hence want to hinge the blame of any sexual immorality or related sins they commit or fall into on nudity and not lust, it's important that they came to the knowledge of this Truth of Christ the founder of the church, which didn't put the blame of sexual immorality and sins on nudity, but on lust.

For without lust, nudity is nothing.

The end.

GOD doesn't get tired. So He doesn't need rest.

Pentasoft1978:
Always read your bible very well before u start preaching....After the fall of man in the garden of Eden, God made cloth for man to cover his unclothedness, because God in his infinite wisdom, knew what the consequences of nudilty will be......the great Evangelist Billy Graham was driven through a street where naked women poster where placed every where, he closed his eyes.....the spirit of lust is activate when you continue looking at naked pictures of women as a man or naked pictures of men as a woman.

Then he should also close the eyes of his mind you that read your bible very well before saying this.

Maybe you should also tell Jesus who said that "he that looks upon a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery in his heart" to also read His bible very well, because that the extent of your knowledge.

p.s. I hope that Billy Graham didn't keep driving though, because you know what would happen if so. Lust is the problem not nudity!

Housing:
GOD doesn't get tired. So He doesn't need rest.

Genesis 2:1-3 (KJV)

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

That is how to deal with sin from the roots; deal with the lust what we often call sin is the outward manifestation of an inward defect.

OLAADEGBU:
I knew this was the kind of heretical teaching the OP will fall into if he continues to believe and teach this erroneous teaching.

The OP is tryna use no stone to kill two birds. pitiful. Not totally wrong, but confusion abounds in his piece.

jesusjnr:
Don't blame nudity, blame your lust.

Unbalanced teaching

1 Corinthians 8:9 - But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

femi4:
Unbalanced teaching

1 Corinthians 8:9 - But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

If so then what would you make of Jesus teaching completely focused on lusting, and never dressing?

Then my own which I even added some of dressing would even be more balanced than His.

Wisdom is indeed justified of her children.

I was wondering how Adam and Eve didn’t know they was naked before the fruit and immediately they had the fruit boom they now knew what unclothedness was. yahweh was indeed interesting and full of surprises.

jesusjnr:
If so then what do you make of Jesus teaching completely focused on lusting, and never dressing?

Then my own which I even added some of dressing would even be more balanced than His.

Wisdom is indeed justified of her children.

So you ll stop teaching at Jesus' teachings. Are the Apostle teachings not inspired by the holy spirit?

Besides, you quoted Jesus out of context there cos Jesus was telling the crowd that he didn't come to abolish the law.

He was describing the new testament way of one the 10th Commandment i.e "Thou shall not commit adultery "

That given in to lust is same as breaking that law

jesusjnr:
Can you go to a village where they are naked and you cannot dress the opposite sex to preach the gospel of Jesus?

If not, then you have a serious issue that would make you not to be fully obedient to the commandment of Jesus.

For Jesus said go into the world and preach the gospel, not to where you are able to dress the people, or where people are dressed.

You shouldn't settle for lust, because that's what you do when you depend on people dressing up for you not to fall into sin.

Imagine how ridiculous it would be if because a woman was necessarily breastfeeding her baby you fell into such temptation.

So this is not against people dressing up, but people depending on people dressing up not to fall into temptation, and sin against God, for I am not naked myself and would advise people to do same because God had a good reason to clothe man and woman after lust came into the equation, even though it wasn't what He originally intended for man.

So that's not the point here but that it is not the solution to the problem of sexual immorality, even though it limits the damage, for the solution is that which Jesus gave, which is not lusting after the opposite sex even in our hearts, is the only solution to the lust problem.

And it behoves every true disciple of Jesus to observe it.

while u are right majority of the text , u are wrong in some aspect , first of all , lust is the problem not nudity but from my point of view , since Adam and Eve eat the fruit , lust becomes a factor in every single man and woman , it becomes a significant factor that can never and ever be eradicated which is why God introduce clothing as a stop gap solution which is also why we must all cover up at all times to prevent lust

1 lust is automatically in every man and woman (a typical example is if u said u conquer the problem of lust and if a lady is to stay with u for a month and thru out the month she was naked , will u be able to resist the lust? let's assumed u were able to because u no longer have lust in you , does that also apply to everyone in the street who will see the same lady going about her business fully naked?

when God introduce clothing , I believe his foolishness is wiser than any man wisdom and since the time of eating the fruit , man has freedom of choice , the cloth is to reduce what man can see and hence affect his decision/judgement, the cloth is to bring back morality , for man to see woman from love point of view and not from lust point of view, the cloth act in a way Adam was seeing eve before they ate the fruit, even with this, women have been sowing cloth in a way that sidestep the original plan of cloth itself by sowing cloth that almost equate nudity bringing back the original Lust God was trying to cover

women especially has been trying hard this days to go back to nudity even in cloth but to what ends? exactly why do u think every female on Instagram is either semi naked or fully naked ? because they are comfortable in nudity ? no but because they are lustful not for sex but for money and sex is one way to bring money

lust is mostly associated with sex but on many occasions it's not sex the primary reason but money .

Yes Jesus was trying to remove the original sin "lust" but even him walk around in cloth because if he remove his cloth because he want to set example so we could actually do away with lust , there are people who will try to rape him (men/women) which in so doing has made those people to sin because of his own behavior

in a nutshell we can not pretend nudity is not a factor , it's a very big factor and no matter who u are , nudity can affect your judgement, God is so wise when he introduced clothing , why did u think nudity is the most sellable product in the world ? even when u have shaded ur mind from nudity , u can still fall for it , because lust is in you , but with moderation from everyone , it can be conquer , if u conquer it , can I? can the numerous people on this forum ?

femi4:
So you ll stop teaching at Jesus' teachings. Are the Apostle teachings not inspired by the holy spirit?

Besides, you quoted Jesus out of context there cos Jesus was telling the crowd that he didn't come to abolish the law.

He was describing the new testament way of one the 10th Commandment i.e "Thou shall not commit adultery "

That given in to lust is same as breaking that law

Jesus Himself commanded His disciples to teach men to observe all that He had commanded them, so any other teaching of any apostle is secondary to that of Jesus, at least Jesus insinuated that Himself by such an instruction.

You can do whatever you want though as many of your kinds today, but I know the difference it makes to follow the example of Jesus, for if it was, then the extent of divorce, sexual immorality, adultery, etc. that takes place amongst those of the church today, inclusive of her leaders wouldn't be today, for even if there was, it would be negligible.

That why I would place the teachings of Jesus far and above every other teaching whether the apostles or not, for one cannot serve two masters but just one, and Jesus is my Master, so it reflects in my words as you can clearly see.

jesusjnr:
Jesus Himself commanded His disciples to teach men to observe all that He had commanded them, so any other teaching of any apostle is secondary to that of Jesus, at least Jesus insinuated that Himself by such an instruction.

You can do whatever you want though as many of your kinds today, but I know the difference it makes to follow the example of Jesus, for if it was, then the extent of divorce, sexual immorality, adultery, etc. that takes place amongst those of the church today, inclusive of her leaders wouldn't be today, for even if there was, it would be negligible.

That why I would place the teachings of Jesus far and above every other teaching whether the apostles or not, for one cannot serve two masters but just one, and Jesus is my Master, so it reflects in my words as you can clearly see.

Let's end this quickly......So, answer with YES or No, Apostle teachings are not Jesus' teachings.

femi4:
Let's end this quickly......So, answer with YES or No, Apostle teachings are not Jesus' teachings.

No use of that. Because you already know my answer to that for only any teaching that corresponds that of Jesus is meant to be taught and observed by those of His church.

[s]

jesusjnr:
Breasts, Pen!s, Nipples, Hips, Ovaries, Sperm, Scrotum, Uterus, Vagina, Testicles, Ova, Vulva, Hymen, Clitoris, buttocks and em, em...

Are you still there?

If yes, how do you feel hearing or rather seeing these words?

If uncomfortable, awkward, uneasy and jittery etc., as if you entered the wrong place and about to take off, then there is only one word responsible for that feeling, and it is called lust.

Because all those things I mentioned there are normal things for there's absolutely nothing wrong with them, but it's only lust that makes them to seem otherwise and as though they were evil and of the devil, and meant to cause harm and damage.

For before the coming of lust into the equation of God's creation, it was said:

Genesis 1:31 (KJV)

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Now of course, I had to embolden the word everything for emphasis, for everything that God had made in the beginning inclusive of all those sexual and reproductive organs etc., i mentioned above was not just good in the sight of God but very good.

And that was not only so in God's sight but also the view of man and woman when God first created them, for all those parts were very good in their sight and that's why it was said of them:

Genesis 2:25 (KJV)

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

So the reason they were not ashamed of those body parts, even though they were naked was because they didn't see it as evil or a bad thing but as a good thing.

Therefore it was a good thing until lust happened as it was said:

Genesis 3:7 (KJV)


And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

So that was the moment they began to see those said parts of their body as a bad and evil thing, and hence something to be ashamed of. And it was lust that was responsible for that change in their view about those said body parts, that the once good thing in their sight now appeared to them to be evil.

Of course lust was a consequence of their disobedience of the commandment of God, and it was so bad to the extent that even when God their Creator sought for them, it was said:

Genesis 3:8-10 (KJV)

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, "Where art thou?"
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

So lust had made them to not only be ashamed of such body parts before themselves, for now extented the resulting shame to God their Creator, even the one who made those said parts of their body, that they were now hiding themselves from Him.

So it shouldn't be surprising the extent of the disappointment of their Creator to such a development that led Him to asked them this very question:

"...Who told thee that thou wast naked?..." Genesis 3:11 (KJV)

The simple answer to that question is, it was lust.

To be continued.

[/s]

jesusjnr:
No use of that. Because you already know my answer to that for only any teaching that corresponds that of Jesus is meant to be taught and observed by those of His church.

I ll leave you with this:

Paul first taught about Jews and Gentiles being one.

It was awkward to Peter because it wasn't part of Jesus' teaching when He was with them.

Gal 2:11
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.


If Jesus taught them ALL, then the need of the holy spirit would be unnecessary.

Hier:
[s][/s]
.

Thank you so much. Maybe next you go and cancel the original post, Lol!