For the more esoterically-oriented out there, more relevant would be that he realized he was indifferentiable from an animal, a situation for which adding clothing would be a natural attempt to differentiate oneself.
Which, with his newly acquired cognitive range, would have presented rather troubling implications for himself and his surroundings regarding things outside the garden.
Implications which, I might add, persist for some right through to the present day.
I'm persistently surprised also by how often evolutionary biologists seem oblivious to the notion of a "birth defect".
Note that I am not saying that evolution didn't happen. I'm saying that species categorization and the "evidence" for them have become so scientifically loose that the claims are unfalsifiable.
It does speak of it, but it does not necessarily specify the "eternal hell if you don't believe" stance that some denominations have promulgated.
There are several possibilities that are not at all easily dismissed by reference to scripture itself...
1. That it is spoken of allegorically
2. That it references "destruction of the soul" rather than "suffering of the soul" (per Christ's use of "destroy the soul in hell")
3. That it is a temporary, not permanent state
4. That it is the final dispensation of the truly evil, not simply on the basis of non-belief (otherwise a review of one's actions from the "Book of Life" seems rather superfluous)
I would exercise extreme caution in stating that one -knows- what God will do, as this is in a sense us telling God what he has to do, on a judgment that is explicitly stated to be made by him in the future (the "Last Judgment"--not a "Show Trial"), but...
I'd suggest taking a look at Conditionalism and its associated Annihilationism as stances that are quite harmonious with scripture, and address some arguments regarding "fairness"--one could say that atheists in general ultimately get exactly what they expect (and demand), per their own worldview.
Yes... and there's a similar challenge produced by the influence of Milton's "Paradise Lost".
These two are a major source of what the general public -thinks- they know about historical Christianity.
Curious, in that although I was made quite aware of the "correct" punctuation in school here in the U.S., I refuse to use it as it is the absolute antithesis of "logical".
The end-quote ends the sentence's subsection of the word or phrase quoted, the period indicates the end of the entire sentence.
The "correct" punctuation is the logical equivalent of doing this in code...
if (instances == 0) IncrementInstances(;)
Which is entirely illogical. Surely someone could throw together a formal argument for this on the basis of Set Theory. The small box goes inside the large box--it shouldn't be "correct" for it to need to protrude out one side.
And, retraction: The evidence I stated was presented to you without challenge or acknowledgement, was actually presented via links to Black Parrot as the next respondent to my original post.
I suppose this calls for refinement of my stance of empirical perception being the absolute bedrock of all knowledge...
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn