The problem with sin nature

adamandeveThe fall of Adam and Eve is essential for Christianity, for without the Fall, humanity would not have acquired a sin nature, and without this sin nature there would be no need for redemption through Christ. Therefore support for this idea of an acquired sin nature (and its separability through redemption) is essential for Christianity to get off the ground. Here’s a table to help organize things:

Pre-Fall (no sin nature) Eve Post-Fall (sin nature) Eve
Free will Free will
Limited knowledge Limited knowledge
Doubt Doubt
Ego Ego
Desire Desire
Curiosity Curiosity
Cognition Cognition
Risk calculation Risk calculation

This table shows the characteristics of pre and post-Fall human nature, using Eve as an example. From Genesis 3 we see that Eve had free will. We learn she wasn’t omniscient, and that she had the capacity to doubt. She had an ego, for she wanted things for herself. She had a desire for pleasurable experiences, a curiosity about the results of her actions, and the ability to take a risk after weighing the pros and cons. All these things Eve could do before she ate the forbidden fruit.

A solution needs a problem

For Christianity to work, we humans cannot currently exist as God designed us to be. Instead there must be something broken, something to fix, a problem to be addressed in our nature. The Christian attempt at creating this problem is to posit a sin nature that we became poisoned with after Adam and Eve disobeyed God, a condition for which Christianity proposes a fix. If this is true, we should see a marked difference when we compare Eve’s post-fall nature to her pre-fall nature. But what is that difference? What aspects of Eve’s nature can be put into one column that cannot be put into the other?

I challenge someone to find a change in Eve after the Fall, that is not merely due to the acquisition of knowledge and experience. How does her nature change? If it doesn’t, then Christianity doesn’t get off the ground. All of the good and bad aspects of human nature we have today would have been present at creation, and any attempt to separate them would be as misguided as trying to separate fire’s ability to cook food from its ability to burn fingers.

Sin nature is a fallacy. What we have, and what we have always had, is a single, human nature, for better or worse. No amount of self-loathing from those that have abandoned the fight for their better selves can change the fact that our transformation must be effected by our own efforts. Christianity may provide an attractive solution for some, but a solution to a non-existent problem helps no one.

29 thoughts on “The problem with sin nature

  1. Thank you for the invitation to explore this. I’ll take a shot at it and appreciate your feedback to help shape the ideas. Here are two changes for starters.

    Pre-fall: content and comfortable in her own skin
    Post-fall: ashamed

    Pre-fall: at ease with God
    Post-fall: afraid

    First, something had changed in the way they felt about themselves. Pre-fall, they were naked an not ashamed. Post-fall, while it was still just the two of them, before any embarrassing questions had even been asked, before God even arrived on the scene, they couldn’t stand to see themselves.

    Second, something had changed in their attitude toward God. Adam had enjoyed something akin to face-to-face conversation with God. Eve was personally introduced to Adam by God himself. Neither of these reports contain a hint of reluctance to engage their Creator. But post-fall, fear is the predominant color of their choices.

    Do not these point to core alterations of their identity? Is it not evident that their entire God orientation had reversed polarity?

    1. Hi Scott, thanks for the reply. To me, what you point out goes to new knowledge and experience, not a new nature. For example: say you’re Irish, and a friend of yours is an unforgiving Italian Mafia boss. Whenever you see him at the local Italian restaurant, you are relaxed and say “hi” because you have a good relationship with the boss, and your Irishness is never an issue in your mind, because everyone there seems to accept you. But later, you steal a shipment of bootleg cigarettes, and then you realize it was your Mafia friend’s shipment. Next time you see him, you might not be so relaxed. You might even be quite nervous. So what changed? Knowledge and experience. You have new knowledge (he may be on to you, and mad at you), and you have a different experience (no longer in a cordial relationship, possibly being on his hit list). You, however, are the same guy you were before you stole the cigarettes. Your nature did not change. However, based on this new set of circumstances, your emotional state has changed, as has your relationship with your Mafia friend. Now you may even become self-conscious of your Irishness when you walk into that Italian restaurant.

      So that is similar to what I think happened to Adam and Eve. Knowledge, experiences, and circumstances changed, and they reacted to them. That is different, however, from their acquiring a different nature. Does that make sense?

      1. Perhaps it would be helpful to hear your definition of “nature”. I was taking my cue from your own inclusion of “doubt” and “curiosity”. What do you mean by human nature?

        1. By nature I mean the attributes that are built into us as humans. The propensity to doubt and to be curious are examples of human nature, yet inasmuch as these led Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, that would be considered sin nature, no? Yet how could she have had this sin nature before having eaten the fruit?

          Perhaps I’m missing your point. Would you agree that sin nature is an attribute humans did not have before the Fall? What would you give as an example of a nature we acquired after the Fall? Remember, it should be a change in nature, not a change in behavior due to a change in knowledge or circumstance (e.g. a friendly dog’s nature has not changed when it becomes fierce after its master is attacked).

          1. The Christian understanding of sin nature is not primarily located in the cognitive domain, but the affective. In other words, we do not think of sin nature as abilities or potentials. It’s not about what we can do. It’s about what we prefer to do. Or even more accurately, whom we prefer to do it for. In narrative literature like Genesis 3 sin shows up symptomatically in behavior, but is rooted in our “spiritual orientation”. Sin nature in biblical terms is a problem of propensity.

            So in looking at the story of the fall, I agree with you that doubt and curiosity were no different before and after. What is different is the native inclination to trust or distrust God. This was completely reversed and is evident in Adam and Eve’s behavior.

          2. I agree with your definition Scott. But doesn’t the Fall show that this propensity was there all along?

          3. So are you saying that despite their propensity to not sin, they did so anyway? Then it seems we’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t (have the propensity to sin). Even without this propensity, Adam and Eve gobbled up that fruit just as fast as you or I would. I understand the distinction you’re making, but the evidence suggests it’s a distinction without a difference.

          4. What evidence?

            You claim they “gobbled up that fruit just as fast as you or I would,” as if as soon as God finished his warning and turned his back, they ran to the tree. This is a new line of reasoning you are suggesting. If you are attempting to demonstrate that their nature was just the same before as it was after based on their speed of decision, you are on shaky ground. Perhaps you are interpreting the brevity of the text for speed of action. How do you know how much time passed between chapters 2 and 3?

            You have also overlooked the role of the tempter. At the beginning and in verses 14-15 of chapter 3, the narrative clearly lays blame for the INITIATION of the fall at the feet of this character. (Note that by contrast, the doom declared on the serpent is more dire than the pain laid on the humans.) Are these not two evidences within the text itself that the suggestion of sin did not arise from within themselves?

            Yes, they chose to follow that suggestion. Yes, they bear the responsibility for it. But that is not the point we are debating. I might be reading too much into your argument, but it sounds as if you are unnecessarily extrapolating their decision backwards into their nature. Adam and Eve were not coerced into their choice, neither by their own nature nor their circumstances. Quite the opposite. Up to that point, they were well supplied with an abundance and variety of other acceptable food. They had meaningful and pleasant work to do. Their relationships with God and with each other were conflict free. They were informed of their moral limit and warned of the consequences. Neither their nature nor their circumstances compelled their rebellion. They were free moral agents. Would you prefer robotic righteousness?

            What observations of the text do you base your conclusions on?

          5. Hi Scott. I agree that we don’t know how much time passed from the creation of Adam and Eve, to the Fall. It may have been a long time. However, I’m starting the countdown from the time Eve encounters the snake, and the dominoes seem to fall pretty quickly after that.

            I agree that the snake precipitated events. However, all the snake did was suggest things that appear not to have occurred to Eve before. Remember, all God told Eve was, “You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.” What does that mean? Even to me, that’s ambiguous. What would death mean to someone such as Eve, who had never experienced death in any form? I think it’s fair to surmise that she did not understand the implications of the warning. Once the snake got her to thinking about it, however, she started to doubt. This corresponds to my theory: the fact that all it took was a couple questions from the snake to give Eve second thoughts, shows that her understanding of God’s warning was shaky at best.

            As to the relationship between Eve and God at that time, we have sparse information. It appears, however, that there was little in the way of meaningful conversation between God and Eve about the tree, for it seems all she knew was that she should not touch it or eat from it, or she would die. Once the snake offered an alternative, Eve had no rebuttal. This suggests that God was less than forthcoming about the reasons for his commands, or details about the how and why.

            It is also possible that God didn’t talk all that much to Eve. Maybe he only showed up once in a while as a voice from the sky, dropping commands with no explanations. In that case, Eve may only have known God as that authoratitive voice from the sky. Now she encounters a talking snake. This is the second authoratitive voice she has run across, that seems to know more than her or Adam about how things worked in the Garden. Which authority is correct? Might a talking snake be more provocative than a voice from the sky? Who knows? God may have been the first one to speak, and maybe he had a deeper voice and more commanding presence, but as for information, the snake appears to have been the superior source. At least the snake offered some explanation about what would happen if she ate the fruit, and a glimpse into the reasons behind the command, and the motivations of the gods.

            Now if you look at what the snake actually said, I don’t think it was anything that Adam and Eve, or at least the society of people that would eventually populate Eden, couldn’t have come up with on their own. Eventually someone would have questioned what death is, why the tree is there, what happens when you die, whether naivete is better than knowledge, whether having knowledge of good and evil is better than not knowing, etc. etc. Doubts and speculations far greater than what the snake suggested would have occurred to the citizens of Eden, and it would only have been a matter of time until someone stepped out on that limb.

            Sorry for the digression, but it comes around to this: what the snake suggested was merely something that would have occurred to the average human sooner or later, because that is how we humans were built. Give us limited knowledge, an ambiguous taboo, and an attractive mystery, and we will speculate and investigate, and not always in the same manner an omniscient God would deem proper. This exercising of our human nature is the root of our sin, yet Christians fail to understand that human nature and sin nature are one in the same. This sin nature business is an illusion–it does not exist. That is why I reject Christianity: it ultimately condemns humans simply for being what they are: human.

            Scott, it seems from your Twitter account that you’re in Thailand? That’s cool. Thanks for taking the time to engage in this conversation, I really appreciate it. I look forward to hearing more from you.

          6. Yes, my wife and I have served with an international Christian school here in Bangkok since 1996. Thank you for the civil and invigorating conversation. I do intend to continue it. We’re nearing the end of the school year, so things are busy.

          7. I return to the original challenge and trace our flow of thought to orient us to my current take on things.

            You asked that someone demonstrate a change in human nature from the story of the fall. You would not count changes that are simply the result of a change in circumstances. We have agreed that we’re also not interested in changes in mere ability. I offered two evidences of a changed nature: their shame at their nakedness and their fear of God. Your rebuttal was that these were merely changes in knowledge and experience, giving a changed relationship among crooks as an example. This is where I’d like to pick up

            There is a breakdown in the analogy to two crooks in your rebuttal, but also a key to clarity. I’ll explain each separately then bring them together to reassert my initial claims.

            The breakdown is this: Your Irishman did not know his thievery was against the Italian mafia boss at the time of his thieving. Adam and Eve clearly knew exactly who they were sinning against when they took the fruit. For them, there was no after-the-fact discovery that, oops, they crossed a line against someone that they did not intend to dis.

            The key is in this portion of your example: “you have a different experience (no longer in a cordial relationship, possibly being on his hit list). You, however, are the same guy…”. Your analysis of a changed relationship but being the “same guy” is decidedly Western. That’s why you’re missing the point of the story. We Westerners tend to define ourselves by abilities and distinctions. But the other two thirds of the world define themselves by relationships and our faithfulness to fulfill the duties inherent in those relationships. Consider this line from Native American author Michael Dorris as his main character in Sees Behind Trees learns that “”Without somebody to be somebody to, it was as though I wasn’t somebody myself”. In the eyes of many cultures, our very identity depends upon the maintenance of obligations laid on us by our relationships. In other words, in the understanding of Genesis’ original writer and readers, a change in relationship IS a change in nature.

            Allow me to bring these two points together. Adam and Eve, unlike the Irishman, knew whose line they were crossing right from the get go. In crossing that line, they chose to alter their relationship with God. Relationship being a critical attribute of identity, that by default altered their very nature. By way of illustration, consider how we talk about the “nature” of physical substances. We describe them by both their physical and chemical properties. “Chemical properties” are descriptions of how the substances behave in the presence of other substances. This is instructive. A change in behavior in the presence of the same substance reveals a change in nature. This is what we see going on in Genesis two through four.

            With this holistic understanding of identity in mind, I reassert these evidences of a change in human nature as found in the story of the fall. Compare the behavior of the humans in the presence of each other and the presence of God before and after the fall.

            IN EACH OTHER’S PRESENCE:
            Example 1:
            Before the fall: naked and unashamed (Genesis 2:25)
            After the fall: ashamed (Genesis 3:7)

            Example 2:
            Before the fall: Adam was proud and pleased that woman had come from him (Genesis 2:23)
            After the fall: Adam blamed God for “the woman you gave to be with me” (Genesis 3:12)

            IN GOD’S PRESENCE:
            Before the fall: Cooperative (Genesis 2:18-20)
            After the fall: fearful and hiding (Genesis 3:8-10)

            With an Easterner’s understanding of identity, these behaviors are best interpreted as not simply innate abilities to react, waiting for new circumstances to let them arise. They are indeed symptomatic of a fundamental shift in relationship to God, a polar reversal – a change in nature.

            There’s more to be said, but enough for now.
            Keenly interested in your response.

          8. Hi Scott, sorry for the delay. It’s been a crazy week. One thing that immediately stands out between your and my depictions of Eve: I see her acting upon limited information with little understanding of the consequences, whereas you claim she understood the moral consequences of her actions. In other words, she knew that she was sticking a thumb into God’s eye and did it anyway. That, however, leaves the question of why a sinless being, created perfect and in God’s image, would choose to do that. My position, as you know, is if she could make that choice before the fall, then “sin nature” was already present in creation. Hence the eradication of sin nature is the same as the eradication of human nature.

            You also seem to be using “change in nature” and “change in relationship” interchangeably. They are two different things, and a change in the latter does not necessarily mean a change in the former. I understand some cultures don’t see it that way, but can you explain actually what’s going on? I don’t see how the two are the same.

            As for your 3 examples, the one that best supports a change in nature is #1: becoming ashamed of their nakedness. It is not apparent why this would happen. My guess is that the Genesis writer’s cultural background may be showing itself in the story. The definition of nakedness differs among cultures. To some Muslims, American women must seem almost naked. To most Americans, many indigenous peoples seem naked (and some are). It’s not clear to me that being aware of nakedness necessarily comes from sin. Perhaps it’s a literary metaphor for guilt in this case? Anyway, those are my thoughts.

            Hope you’re well.

          9. Indeed, it doesn’t make sense. They were so called created by god, their brains, their desires, invented and created by god. At the point of them being offered the fruit, their desire to eat it and go against god, was greater than their desire not to eat it. And they never choose to have that desire to go against god.

          10. Only if you’re inclined to go against your ‘usual’ inclination when you make the choice.

            You could try and show how you are correct by, for example, stating you don’t like a certain food, and then proceeding to eat some, despite your distaste for it.

            But really, you’d only do that because you’d be inclined to try and prove your point, so your greatest ‘inclination’, at the point of making a choice whether to eat the food, would be to eat it, despite not liking it.

    2. Firstly, we need to not look at things from the lens of , what sin is Now to us…Any student of scripture knows and can see God dealt with ppl on the bases of dispensation…some believe in them and some don’t…though the scriptures mentions ” dispensation 4 times in scripture…..God dealt with ppl based on dispensation and covenants….prescribed order….which will answer the questions of how ppl were saved before Jesus…it’s well worth noticing if you go back to the situation of the serpent decieving eve .take note that she it seems lies when telling what God said about the tree. ” to not touch it”…compare that to Gods only prescription ” to not eat of it” …said nothing about touching…so why wasn’t luring the sin action? Becks the dispensation was based on one thing

      1. Am not speaking for the operators, but sourrces told me they have serious bus captain shortage problem (some 300 vacancies). More have just resigned after bonus payout for greener pastures like inter-city coach and truck driving. This means strething the exsiting pool even further. Inevitably adhoc unvailability (eg tierdness, sicknes) do happen resulting in missed trips. MOM resticts the sources of bus drivers (Don’t understand why). Will fine help to solve?

      2. We talked about the death penalty (which France doesn’t have) in a story thread awhile back – and what constitutes a valid situation for capital punishment.This is one case – a black/white case – where I would whole-heartedly support ridding the world of this guy then pissing on his grave.David K from Philly

      3. It was the tree of the knowledge of GOOD and evil. If Eve had no understanding of either GOOD or evil how could she sin? It was a totally unknown concept. She didn’t even know God was “good” until she gained the knowledge of GOOD and evil. She was pretty much in a no win situation.
        The concept of gaining a sin nature is a necessary component in Christian thinking to explain how Eve did not die the same day like God said she would; they say she died spiritually. But that assertion only reinforces that Eve could have had no idea what God was talking about. Had she ever seen any one or anything “die spiritually”? She may have seen animals die physically but even that is conjecture. So can she be held accountable for being “deceived” when she really had no idea what God was talking about. God did not even warn her about the snake which she could not tell was evil because she had no knowledge of good or evil anyway to understand. The whole situation was stacked against her.

  2. Hi Scott, sorry for the delay. It’s been a crazy week. One thing that immediately stands out between your and my depictions of Eve: I see her acting upon limited information with little understanding of the consequences, whereas you claim she understood the moral consequences of her actions. In other words, she knew that she was sticking a thumb into God’s eye and did it anyway. That, however, leaves the question of why a sinless being, created perfect and in God’s image, would choose to do that. My position, as you know, is if she could make that choice before the fall, then “sin nature” was already present in creation. Hence the eradication of sin nature is the same as the eradication of human nature.

    You also seem to be using “change in nature” and “change in relationship” interchangeably. They are two different things, and a change in the latter does not necessarily mean a change in the former. I understand some cultures don’t see it that way, but can you explain actually what’s going on? I don’t see how the two are the same.

    As for your 3 examples, the one that best supports a change in nature is #1: becoming ashamed of their nakedness. It is not apparent why this would happen. My guess is that the Genesis writer’s cultural background may be showing itself in the story. The definition of nakedness differs among cultures. To some Muslims, American women must seem almost naked. To most Americans, many indigenous peoples seem naked (and some are). It’s not clear to me that being aware of nakedness necessarily comes from sin. Perhaps it’s a literary metaphor for guilt in this case? Anyway, those are my thoughts.

    Hope you’re well.

    1. Yes, I do use “change in nature” and “change in relationship” interchangeably. I agree with you that they are two different things, but the overlap is unavoidable, like two sides of the same coin.

      The Biblical perspective makes clear that our very nature is one of relationship to God. We are “made in His image, after his likeness” in order to “have dominion and rule” and “not be alone”. This means that having been endowed with scaled-down versions of some of his attributes, we would take joy in co-ruling his creation on his behalf . By design, our relationship with God infuses every other relationship and activity: our self-understanding, our human-to-human relationships, and our interaction with nature.

      So a change in relationship with God would divorce us from the very purpose and design of our being. I see this in the Genesis account in at least three ways.

      1. In the shame of Adam and Eve upon discovering their nakedness, before God even showed up, we see that their understanding and acceptance of themselves was warped.

      2. In the blame game that ensued when God started asking questions and in the consequences pronounced upon Eve (“pain in childbearing… desire for your husband, and he shall rule over you”) we see human relationships hurt.

      3. In the curse on the ground (“thorns and thistles it shall bring forth… in the sweat of your face you shall eat bread”) we see our interaction with the rest of the planet distorted.

      So, yes, a change in our relationship with God alters everything else about us.

  3. Scott’s argument is just special pleading, and this is unsurprising. This seems to be the only way to make a Christian argument actually work.

    The only difference I can see between Adam and Eve is that they suddenly knew they were naked and were ashamed of it. But there’s really no justification for such a realization. If they were intelligent enough to understand the whole forbidden fruit exclusion, then they were certainly aware enough to know they were unclothed. So why were they suddenly so ashamed of being naked? That’s the only compelling question that remains and there’s no real intelligent answer from a Christian perspective. The only answer that makes any sense is that this is allegory, plain and simple. People realizing their nakedness is awkward is allegory for the evolution and maturation of the human species from a native, tribal creature to a civilized one where naked bodies present social challenges. It also presents the idea of using religion to control behavior, which of course, is the primary function of religion.

  4. A man / male made up this story of adam and eve in order to help control the population. All of the argumenrs above just help prove that the bible is nonsense. Since we evolved from algae and chemical reactions…Where does god come into it?

  5. Judgment…The grand deception of Christianity

    I asked a professor in college how the whole German nation could be convinced that exterminating all Jews was a righteous crusade… He said that people can be brainwashed to believe anything with appropriate reinforcement.

    Society was brainwashed by the Romans that judgment and Satan were fundamental dogma to Christianity. Historically, they were unrelated. We need reward and punishment systems, but it’s just not what Jesus was about.

    The bible was not published by Christians to be the sacred testament of the faith. It was published by a pagan Roman emperor 300 years after Christ for the purpose of merging his dying pagan religion with the cresting wave of Christianity.

    Joseph Ratzinger (pope) quit his first seminary because it conceded that there were two separate and opposing Christianities in the second century. The first was the original Jewish Christianity of Jesus and the second was the Roman gentile Christianity of Paul. They noted that “Paul was indifferent to the teaching of Jesus, and the opponent of the religion of love Christ came to announce to the world.” Catholic Encyclopedia

    “Seemingly there are two forms of Christianity. One that the historical Christ is said to have taught, love and forgiveness, and one that the Church teaches, guilt, shame and blame. Traditional Roman Christianity has taught that hope and solace… are only possible through the redemption from sin by the vicarious sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, for all those who acknowledge His teaching… but it is precisely this form of the doctrine of salvation that rests almost exclusively on the work of Paul, and was never taught by Jesus. (On Guilt, Shame and Blame in Christianity, by the White Robed Monks of Saint Benedict)

    “Fire and brimstone…” the threat of Revelations. Thomas Jefferson said “it must have been written by a mad man.” Thomas Paine said “churches were institutions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” That might explain why only 3% of young adults now believe in the church’s Satan or that God could ever be vengeful…

    As Rome was crumbling, the church sainted Emperor Constantine for converting western civilization to Christianity, when the sagacious politician really just rubber stamped “Christianity” on his dying pagan religion. Judgment, Satan, hell, Easter and Yuletide didn’t exist in Jewish Christianity… Along with the “virgin birth,” the “Christmas story” and being the “son of god” concepts, they were all Roman pagan religion. You may want to believe in this Roman theology, but none of it had anything to do with the teaching of Jesus Christ. Surf up the history…it’s all there.

    Constantine published the bible for the purpose of confirming his paganized “Roman” Christianity. This compromised Christianity became the basis of church religion, even though it had nothing to do with Jesus Christ. The bible and its concept of salvation, judgment and hell was solely introduced by Paul. He was an orthodox Jew who hated Christians and never met Jesus. Paul had his epiphany on the road to Damascus, but it was a revised Christianity that had nothing to do with the message of Christ. Christ never said He’d reneg on His pledge of love, and return as a vengeful god to punish those who had not accepted His teaching. This was Roman religious culture.

    Christ’s message was that God was not vengeful, but that He was loving and forgiving. Easter or “Eostre” was the pagan goddess of fertility and reproduction. The female sex hormone “estrogen” is closer to the meaning of Easter than the church’s insistence that Easter commemorates His resurrection… It’s always been a challenge for clergy to divert us from the obvious symbolism of eggs and bunnies.

    This was all pagan dogma that the Romans changed the religion to 300 years after Christ. The church’s Christianity of “turn or burn” is the opposite of the religion of love Christ came to announce to the world.

    This is why Bishop John Spong concedes “the church has always been in the guilt producing control business and dangled us between their imaginary heaven and hell as a control tactic.”

    Brad O’Donnell, author “Where to Now Saint Paul?”
    video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQVyZ74HmiA

    1. Much to comment on, but only want to address your opening point about “a whole German nation” being brainwashed. Whereas I do agree with the professor’s statement that anyone can be “brainwashed” if properly reinforced, I think your professor should have corrected you on the fact that the it was not the whole of the nation. Many people spoke out against it and were imprisoned or killed, many fled to other nations in the West because they did not side with the philosophy, and many were simply left in the dark and were not aware (some by choice admittedly). So let’s be clear it was not an entire nation, even if it was a high percentage. However, the same things happen today. Propaganda and a weak intellect can wreak all kinds of havoc.

  6. what you say is true. but they weren’t fit for heaven and death came to them. they eat off the bad tree.

  7. ///”I challenge someone to find a change in Eve after the Fall, that is not merely due to the acquisition of knowledge and experience. How does her nature change? “/// answer: she died.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *