No Next Item No Next Conference Can't Favor Can't Forget Item List Conference Home Entrance    Help
View Responses


Grex Thezone Item 42: Genesis question
Entered by orinoco on Thu Nov 2 00:55:52 UTC 1995:

Did adam and eve have navels?

29 responses total.



#1 of 29 by orinoco on Thu Nov 2 01:00:16 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


#2 of 29 by eldrich on Thu Nov 2 17:24:47 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.


#3 of 29 by orinoco on Sat Nov 4 01:13:49 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


#4 of 29 by eldrich on Sat Nov 4 15:33:37 1995:

<Eldrich belives in both today, whether orin likes it or not!>


#5 of 29 by kain on Sun Nov 5 01:50:11 1995:

don't worry eld, he's to smart for his own good


#6 of 29 by orinoco on Sun Nov 5 21:48:02 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


#7 of 29 by y on Mon Nov 6 20:20:48 1995:

Humans have navel because mammals have navels.  
God has a navel, but it is a very embarassing place..


#8 of 29 by llanarth on Wed Nov 22 23:28:08 1995:

Heh...


#9 of 29 by fswallow on Sun Dec 17 03:42:56 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.


#10 of 29 by orinoco on Sun Dec 17 13:49:29 1995:

Interesting....what does God's image consist of, then?


#11 of 29 by kain on Sun Dec 17 18:01:21 1995:

indeed tell us more


#12 of 29 by eldrich on Tue Dec 19 01:16:33 1995:

<If god had a face, what would it look like, and would you want to see it...>
;)


#13 of 29 by orinoco on Tue Dec 19 21:15:09 1995:

and would he forget to put question marks at the end of his sentences


#14 of 29 by y on Thu Jan 4 17:14:37 1996:

Would he really


#15 of 29 by orinoco on Sat Jan 6 15:35:32 1996:

erm, "of his sentences?"
<orinoco stands corrected>


#16 of 29 by eldrich on Sun Jan 21 17:28:01 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?


#17 of 29 by kain on Tue Jan 23 03:30:23 1996:

maybe they just haven't come back on in awhile yet


#18 of 29 by nistel on Sun Nov 17 16:48:33 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.


#19 of 29 by orinoco on Sun Nov 24 14:15:27 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


#20 of 29 by nistel on Sun Dec 1 13:57:35 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 ?


#21 of 29 by orinoco on Sun Dec 1 18:24:02 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.


#22 of 29 by eldrich on Sun Dec 1 22:51:47 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.


#23 of 29 by orinoco on Mon Dec 2 22:50:48 1996:

Interesting...you're saying that birth and creation are equivalent?


#24 of 29 by snafu on Tue Dec 3 01:52:24 1996:

weird....


#25 of 29 by eldrich on Tue Dec 3 22:32:05 1996:

 god controling the flow of souls into bodies.


#26 of 29 by orinoco on Wed Dec 4 02:44:33 1996:

I see.  


#27 of 29 by nistel on Sun Dec 29 13:30:24 1996:

Are we always going by the assumption that we know all the answers (or) are
we just theorising ? Pls. clarify.


#28 of 29 by orinoco on Sun Dec 29 16:02:16 1996:

Just putting out theories, I think.
I'm actually not Christian, but new ideas are always nice.


#29 of 29 by nistel on Wed Jan 1 07:25:21 1997:

Good. I'll remember Orin.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

No Next Item No Next Conference Can't Favor Can't Forget Item List Conference Home Entrance    Help

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss