|
|
| Author |
Message |
orinoco
|
|
Genesis question
| 
Nov 2 00:55 UTC 1995 |
Did adam and eve have navels?
|
| 29 responses total. |
orinoco
|
|
response 1 of 29:
|
Nov 2 01:00 UTC 1995 |
Wow! Item #42!
A brief run-through of the arguments on either side.
Pro:
Adam and Eve were made "in God's image". Humanity in general was made "In
God's image". So Adam and Eve must have looked like all other
humans--with navels.
Con:
Navels are a side effect of being born--the remanants of the umbilical cord.
Adam and Eve were made, not born, so they had no navels
|
eldrich
|
|
response 2 of 29:
|
Nov 2 17:24 UTC 1995 |
So your saying that god had a navel? And of course that would mean that god was
born, meaning that he had parents. Hmm, this item could be interesting.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 3 of 29:
|
Nov 4 01:13 UTC 1995 |
no, eld.
If you believe that the navel is an innate part of the human form,
and thus God's form, then yes, god must have a navel. But only if
you assume that the navel is a side effect of birth would God's
having a navel imply that god has parents. But if a navel is an
innate part of the human form, then it must exist irrespective of
whether or not one was born. And therefore, you cannote take both
points of view--either god has a navel, but that doesn't mean he was
born; or god might or might not have a navel, and if he does, it
would mean he was born. Ergo, god *might* have been born
|
eldrich
|
|
response 4 of 29:
|
Nov 4 15:33 UTC 1995 |
<Eldrich belives in both today, whether orin likes it or not!>
|
kain
|
|
response 5 of 29:
|
Nov 5 01:50 UTC 1995 |
don't worry eld, he's to smart for his own good
|
orinoco
|
|
response 6 of 29:
|
Nov 5 21:48 UTC 1995 |
well if you do belive in both, then yes, you have to belive that God
was born. But that doesn't meant that God has parents--at least
not earthly parents. In fact, he is his own father--God the Father/
God the Son
|
y
|
|
response 7 of 29:
|
Nov 6 20:20 UTC 1995 |
Humans have navel because mammals have navels.
God has a navel, but it is a very embarassing place..
|
llanarth
|
|
response 8 of 29:
|
Nov 22 23:28 UTC 1995 |
Heh...
|
fswallow
|
|
response 9 of 29:
|
Dec 17 03:42 UTC 1995 |
Adam and Eve were made in GOD's image. Contary to what you belive GODs image
is not physical but spirit. Look it up in an concordance.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 10 of 29:
|
Dec 17 13:49 UTC 1995 |
Interesting....what does God's image consist of, then?
|
kain
|
|
response 11 of 29:
|
Dec 17 18:01 UTC 1995 |
indeed tell us more
|
eldrich
|
|
response 12 of 29:
|
Dec 19 01:16 UTC 1995 |
<If god had a face, what would it look like, and would you want to see it...>
;)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 13 of 29:
|
Dec 19 21:15 UTC 1995 |
and would he forget to put question marks at the end of his sentences
|
y
|
|
response 14 of 29:
|
Jan 4 17:14 UTC 1996 |
Would he really
|
orinoco
|
|
response 15 of 29:
|
Jan 6 15:35 UTC 1996 |
erm, "of his sentences?"
<orinoco stands corrected>
|
eldrich
|
|
response 16 of 29:
|
Jan 21 17:28 UTC 1996 |
It seams that whenever someone like Dylan or Mr. Fallows here make interesting
points and we ask them to exsplain they never show up again to say anything
more (eg the "Myths" item)! Is it just me or are preachy people afraid of
discusion?
|
kain
|
|
response 17 of 29:
|
Jan 23 03:30 UTC 1996 |
maybe they just haven't come back on in awhile yet
|
nistel
|
|
response 18 of 29:
|
Nov 17 16:48 UTC 1996 |
adam and eve has what ? well, i guess i heard you all right but i was just
making sure. ok, here goes : maybe, maybe not. there is such a thing as
evolution, see - and maybe that's how we got our navels. that is, if they
did'nt have one. (Darwins my Consultant on this). And if they did have one,
i guess that doesnt brook any argument. but i'd really like to know what
sparked off that curiosity in you. good one really. left me gaping to see
a question like this.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 19 of 29:
|
Nov 24 14:15 UTC 1996 |
The thing is, nistel, that navels aren't a product of evolution, but a product
of being born, which Adam and EWve weren't
|
nistel
|
|
response 20 of 29:
|
Dec 1 13:57 UTC 1996 |
OK Ori, I'll grant you that one. I stand corrected. Assuming that I succumb
to the very christian belief of an Adam and Eve. It's only now that I realised
that To be Born is unlike To Be Created . But arent we all created before we
are born ? Or is that the Point ? Why am I confused ?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 21 of 29:
|
Dec 1 18:24 UTC 1996 |
Sorry If I'm being confusing, nistel...it's true that navels may well be a
product of creation as well as birth, i.e. Adam and Eve may have been created
with navels, even though they weren't born, and therefore had no need for
them.
|
eldrich
|
|
response 22 of 29:
|
Dec 1 22:51 UTC 1996 |
Okay how do creationist view birth then do they view it as the body reproducing
and a soul being thrown in, or "And god said 'let jack and jill have a baby,
and jack and jill had a bady.and it was good.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 23 of 29:
|
Dec 2 22:50 UTC 1996 |
Interesting...you're saying that birth and creation are equivalent?
|
snafu
|
|
response 24 of 29:
|
Dec 3 01:52 UTC 1996 |
weird....
|