#Blasphemy
Adam — The Origin of Sin
When Christians talk about “the fall of man,” most point to Eve and the infamous bite of fruit from the tree of knowledge. But I want to suggest something radically different—and deeply uncomfortable: the fall doesn’t begin with Eve, the serpent, or even the fruit. It begins with Adam, and not with his disobedience, but with something more foundational—his rejection of God’s first provision. A rejection born of pride, entitlement, and a desire to play an unaccountable god.
This essay explores how Adam’s rejection of God’s chosen helper sets the stage not only for humanity’s fall, but also for what some Christian mystics refer to as Paul’s blood cult: a framework rooted not in Jesus’ teachings of responsibility, mercy, and humility, but in a desperate, violent cycle of scapegoating, sacrifice, and spiritual avoidance. It’s a theology built to let man keep rejecting God while still demanding salvation.
What Does “Helper” Really Mean?
We begin in Genesis 2:18, where God says:
“It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (ESV)
That word helper—in Hebrew, עֵזֶר (ezer)—has been tragically misunderstood. People often assume it means a subordinate or assistant. But the Bible itself contradicts that. The word ezer appears 21 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. In 16 of those, it refers to God Himself as Israel’s helper—a divine force of strength, protection, and rescue. The rest refer to powerful military allies—never an underling or servant. The only two times ezer is used to describe a physical helper are right here in Genesis 2.
So when God says He will make a “helper fit for him,” He’s not talking about a sidekick or housemaid. He’s saying man will receive a form of divine aid—the kind only God—the Holy Spirit can bring. That’s important. Because what God gives Adam first is not Eve.
The First Divine Intervention — Animals
In the very next verse:
“Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man…” (Genesis 2:19)
God gives Adam animals as his helpers—not for food, but as divine intervention (Genesis 1:28–30, ESV). I believe this was meant as a blueprint for living harmoniously with one’s surroundings: nature as example, a foundation for what is possible, God’s chosen way. God even lets Adam name them, to subdue them—to witness God in them and therefore in himself—a privilege tied to both dominion and intimacy through the lens of natural law.
But before we get into the beauty of this gift, something telling happens:
“But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.” (Genesis 2:20)
Adam, after naming every creature—after receiving God’s intended gift—declares it insufficient. He rejects divine provision.
To me, this is the true original sin—not disobedience, not temptation, but rejection of God’s will and the entitlement that fuels it. Adam wants something more, something else. But how does he even know he needs something beyond God?
If I were present at the birthing of God’s world—in the very presence of Creator—I like to think I’d be overcome with awe, overwhelmed by the divine beauty. The Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, all-encompassing Source—the true self—where literally every-thing comes from.
Yet Adam’s first impulse seems to be:
How can I get my dick wet?
Come on. That’s perversion.
This is where I start questioning the Eden narrative. Is this really a zoom-in on the sixth day of creation, or is this man’s first test?
Because what God does next blows my mind. He gives Adam exactly what he thinks he wants—the free will to play god.
Adam Gets What He Wants — Eve
“So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” (Genesis 2:21–22)
From Adam’s rib—not his heart—God creates Eve. That’s a powerful metaphor. God breathes life into man’s nostrils to give him life (Genesis 2:7), but from the rib—the cage that protects man’s lungs—He forms Eve. Is she now the keeper of Adam’s breath and not God? Is Eve Adam’s prison?
Adam wakes and says:
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh…” (Genesis 2:23)
“At last,” he says. Finally, something he approves of. Something from him. This isn’t God’s creation in the same way the animals were—it’s Adam’s own flesh, his own standard. Eve is born not from divine inspiration but from man’s dissatisfaction. She’s the manifestation of Adam’s will.
God creates man in His own image. That should be enough. But Adam wants to be one flesh with something that reflects himself and not source. Isn’t that the primal form of narcissism? Here we see not only the seed of the fall, but the foundation for the theological trap Paul later perfects.
From Wholeness to Lack — A Theology of Projection
Genesis 1:27 says:
“So God created man in his own image… male and female he created them.”
This implies male and female were created in divine unity from the beginning—
not as halves, but as whole reflections of God’s image under the umbrella term “man.”
Yet Genesis 2:24 says:
“A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
Why would man need to become one flesh if he was already created whole in God’s image?
This smells like Adam’s rejection in motion—
a theology of lack,
where man believes he’s incomplete and must find wholeness outside of himself.
God creates us in His image and gives us everything we need to thrive,
then places us in a garden to see what we’ll do with His gifts.
Instead of responding with gratitude, Adam is left unsatisfied.
And note:
“But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.” (Genesis 2:20)
It doesn’t say, “But for God there was not found a helper fit for Adam.” It’s Adam making the judgment.
How does Adam know what’s “not fit,” and why the assumption that helper must be sex-related?
Adam is the first pervert.
No wonder God eventually floods the earth—to wipe out Adam’s lineage and start fresh with Noah.
Adam’s descendants inherit his unaccountable perversion, using it as justification to enslave themselves in sin.
The Setup for the Fall — and the Blood Cult
Then comes the serpent, the fruit, and the familiar fall. But notice:
“She took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.” (Genesis 3:6)
Eve does what Adam did before her: trusts her own perception over God’s word. And why wouldn’t she?
She was made from a man who thought his judgment was superior to God’s.
Adam eats, then blames her. Eve blames the serpent. The cycle of spiritual irresponsibility begins.
This is the theology Paul inherits—not Jesus’.
Paul’s Blood Cult — A Theology of Irresponsibility
Paul builds a system where man’s original sin is inherent, and salvation requires blood—not accountability.
“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” – Hebrews 9:22
“Christ died for our sins…” – 1 Corinthians 15:3
Here’s the scapegoat chain:
First, Eve
Then, the serpent
Ultimately, Jesus
Instead of owning his rejection of God, man demands a sacrificial lamb. Paul gives him one.
The Divine Joke — Reject God, Get Saved Anyway
The entitlement is staggering: Adam rejects God’s gift, gets what he wants, falls, then a religion is invented where God’s son must die to clean up our mess.
Jesus taught mercy, self-examination, and union with God—not a rinse-and-repeat blood ritual.
Paul flips that into sin, sacrifice, repeat.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: reject God, refuse responsibility, kill God, avoid consequences, then call it grace.
Conclusion — The First Violence
If there’s a primal violence in Scripture, it’s not Eve’s bite—it’s Adam’s rejection. That rejection birthed:
A theology of lack
A hunger for external validation of the flesh over the spirit
The scapegoating of women and creation
A system where blood is the only cure for sin
All because Adam’s level of awareness was too bound and too shallow to be present to God’s majesty.
Jesus offered another way—surrender, humility, love. But that requires responsibility. And ever since Adam, that’s been the one thing man won’t and can’t seem to bear. It is easier to blame the “Other”—misery loves company—because accountability takes work.
People may want to counter argue that sex is necessary for survival.
To which I say: sex is sacred.
Genesis 1:27–28 says:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply…’”
“Him” is “them.” Humanity already holds the knowledge to be fruitful and multiply—God gave this gift to honor His reflection.
But before we could explore that sacredness with Him, Adam failed the Eden test.
Instead of praising God and sharing in His blessings through every living creature, Adam wanted to be God. He thought naming what he wasn’t gave him the right to know what he was—forgetting that God is in everything, and the awareness of this is the greatest gift because it reveals the true self that lives in all.
Remember: a child doesn’t learn the world through sex.
Then why, as a child of God, would it be any different for Adam?
“God is love.” (1 John 4:8)
“If God so loved us, we also ought to love one another… if we love one another,
God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.” (1 John 4:11–12)
And yet, this was not Adam’s story. Love was replaced by ego. Awareness with desire.
Adam is the origin of sin, paving the way for Paulism and for Jesus to become man’s blood sacrifice.
Which leaves the real question:
If God was willing to sacrifice His son, what is my excuse?
To what lengths am I willing to live by example—
be accountable for my actions and responsible for myself as Jesus teaches?
Or will I follow false prophets to justify staying isolated and severed from Spirit—like a self-fulfilled prophecy?
