• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Adam, Eve, and belly buttons

D_NATURED said:
Thank you, Sal, for saying "my" higher power and not just declaring that the one you imagine is everyone else's, whether they like it or not. I really do appreciate the small things and that's a biggie for me.

As for the belly button, I think that the question demonstrates the intellectual knots that religion needlessly ties in the minds of men. I prefer the more scientifically accurate idea that there was no "first" man or woman. We slowly changed, and continue to change, over time. At some point, we started calling ourselves human but the first being to be called that is not exactly what we are now.

The better question is, if and when we evolve to the point where we no longer allow myths to define our past, will we have to call ourselves something else? If the word "human" describes the Earthly being that evolved from lower primates but refuses to accept, or remains conflicted about, that natural process that resulted in who we are, once the creation myth has evolved out of our historical narrative, that will represent a profound point of divergence. From there on, we may choose to call ourselves something with more meaning to the future, even if we are physically very similar to what we are today. No doubt, the evolution of ideas do as much to define us, as a species, as whether we still have a tail-or a belly button- or not.
Click to expand...
you are most welcome and can't say I disagree with a single thing you have said here:cheers:
 
Moot said:
Don't quote me on this...but I think that Mormons believe that everyone starts out as a spirit child and live with God on planet called Kolob. When the spirit child is ready, God sends it down to earth to be born. When Mormons die...and if they are in good standing with the church....the men will inherit their own planet and have many wives and make more spirit children to help populate the universe....or something like that. Basically, Mormons believe they have more power in numbers...so they have lots of children to help fill up the ranks...and their spirits have to come from somewhere..so why not Kolob?
Click to expand...

Do you get to choose if your planet has rings or not?
 
Gringo allstar said:
Do you get to choose if your planet has rings or not?
Click to expand...

Sure, why not? lol However, those spirits that inhabit planets close to Kolob become exalted and God like and those who inhabit planets far away from Kolob become servants.
 
Moot said:
Sure, why not? lol However, those spirits that inhabit planets close to Kolob become exalted and God like and those who inhabit planets far away from Kolob become servants.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh, sounds delicious!
 
maquiscat said:
Mods, if this belongs further down, feel free to move it. This seems the right place to put this though.

so seeing this:

It suddenly occurred to me. If God has planned humans to breed from the start, why wouldn't he have also "sculpted" in a belly button on them when he created them? Why would anyone assume that He'd forget such a detail, simply because they were not born, but created grown? This question uses the presumption of the Adam/Eve creation being a true event, even if details are lacking. I do not assert this to be so but simply based the discussion off that premise.
Click to expand...

Adam and Eve are myths, like Uranus and Gaia.
 
maquiscat said:
Added: Also I note how you dismiss the Torah in this. After all the OT and the Torah are of common origin (I believe that the Torah has books that the Bible's OT doesn't, but I am not positive). So does this type of literalism defeat the deeper meaning of the Torah as well, or only the Bible?
Click to expand...

The Torah has less books than the Old Testament. It contains: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Once you add the Nevi'im and Kethuvim to it you end up with the Tanakh which is the entirety of Jewish scripture. The books in the Tanakh are identical to the Protestant Christian Old Testament although it contains less books than the Catholic Old Testament or the versions some Orthodox churches use. There is no case I know about where it contains more books than the Christian Old Testament.

To more directly address your statement: the dominant view within Judaism for centuries has been that Genesis is to be understood metaphorically. Even sources as old as the Talmud attest to this. This is also the view of Catholic, Orthodox, and most mainline protestant denominations. Biblical literalism of the type that would have a problem with evolution is limited to certain segments of the evangelical Christian community that most people would term "fundamentalist". In a nutshell, this is a big deal in some churches prevalent in the southern USA and not an issue virtually anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
Mods, if this belongs further down, feel free to move it. This seems the right place to put this though.

so seeing this:

It suddenly occurred to me. If God has planned humans to breed from the start, why wouldn't he have also "sculpted" in a belly button on them when he created them? Why would anyone assume that He'd forget such a detail, simply because they were not born, but created grown? This question uses the presumption of the Adam/Eve creation being a true event, even if details are lacking. I do not assert this to be so but simply based the discussion off that premise.
Click to expand...

What makes you think Adam and Eve had, or didn't have, navels? Paintings are just interpretations, or wishes, of what humans think they looked like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom