redfish Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Adam and Eve is story made to explain away evolution. That goes along another thing I like to argue with religious fanatics. If sex and conception before marriage are so wrong, then were Adam and Eve sinners? Who married them before Cain and Abel were conceived? And you know they'll come up with some "God married them" nonsense. there are real moral reasons behind the tradition of not having sex before marriage. sex before marriage, even if it ends up in conception, was held questionable because it showed the person in the relationship was more driven by lust than love and a socially committed relationship, because otherwise the person would have the willingness and commitment to get married first, where divorce was considered sinful as well. marriage would be a purposeful and sacred union before god. as to why lust is considered a sin thats a different topic. but the point would be that a lot of these considerations would not matter or make sense in the situation of adam and eve (who, btw, had their children after they became sinful beings, leaving the garden of eden). but someone could believe that the considerations have a purpose in modern society. nowhere in the bible as far as im aware does it lay out strict dictums on there being no sex before marriage. the social tradition is something thats drawn from the christian treatment of lust as a sin. any religious person you ask that question to and is vexed doesn't really understand the basis for their beliefs and probably refers all of them to what the bible says. someone might not be wrong when they come up with "god married them" (as a metaphor) but that kind of statement is meaningless and useless. the whole story of adam and eve was taken by most theologans and christian thinkers in history to be allegorical anyway though, not as a real way to explain creation. im not christian btw.--so dont bother thinking i am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaidiir Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 The spanish inquisition would slap you upside the head for that kind of talk sir :) So in the past they taught people different from what they do now....... Using the same book......written by him upstairs.......(see where I am going with this)......him up stairs being infallible.......so....... if he was wrong before he can't be infallible............. his existence, as an omnipotent being, is therefore negated. Sorry. Nothing I can do. :laugh: pwnage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangbang023 Veteran Posted March 19, 2006 Veteran Share Posted March 19, 2006 The spanish inquisition would slap you upside the head for that kind of talk sir :) So in the past they taught people different from what they do now....... Using the same book......written by him upstairs.......(see where I am going with this)......him up stairs being infallible.......so....... if he was wrong before he can't be infallible............. his existence, as an omnipotent being, is therefore negated. Sorry. Nothing I can do. Or, as human knowledge and understanding have advanced, the Church now has a better understanding of the writings and their origins, including how they should be interpreted. Surely, you don't think that mankind has learned nothing since your aforementioned Spanish inquisition. The story of Adam and Eve, while believed by many, is obviously not literal. It is used, however, to explain mankind's separation from paradise and how we received the burden of original sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnesia Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 I would say yes because it would be their bodies that would serve as a template for humans @brent, I believe in evolution, so do many people that I know, but myself and those people also believe in God or a creator. @everyone, I think you are all misunderstanding the purpose of voting. I think it would be clearer to say, "If Adam and Eve did exist, do you think they would have bellybuttons" I dont know why people are turning this into whether Adam an Eve existed at all, since it's not the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmaster84 Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 I don't tihnk they did, but there children did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeydoo Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Or, as human knowledge and understanding have advanced, the Church now has a better understanding of the writings and their origins, including how they should be interpreted. Surely, you don't think that mankind has learned nothing since your aforementioned Spanish inquisition. The story of Adam and Eve, while believed by many, is obviously not literal. It is used, however, to explain mankind's separation from paradise and how we received the burden of original sin. NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! It had to be done. Anyhoo. I am just pointing out that in the past the bible was "the word of god". Now it isn't. What does that say about the word of god? And if the bible WAS the literal truth and it isn't today your saying that GOD, because he is responsible for everything (so I understand), wanted them to misinterpret it completely and use it as an excuse for killing millions of people. I don't know god that well, but I do know I don't like him. As I only have his "actions" to judge him with. Oh and as for atheists "lacking morals". I heard about a study from 1997 which interviewed 75,000 prisoners about their religion and it found that only 156 out of 75,000! (0.02%) were atheists. FYI 29,267 were Catholic. ;) Not saying it's "evidence" of anything; I just find it interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chmsant Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Yes they did. And here is my reasoning: Adam and Eve had to be born, just as modern man is today. They were moved from somewhere else.... yes God created man, but it wasn't some "I want man to appear..." poof there they are type of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unequivocal Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! It had to be done. Anyhoo. I am just pointing out that in the past the bible was "the word of god". Now it isn't. What does that say about the word of god? And if the bible WAS the literal truth and it isn't today your saying that GOD, because he is responsible for everything (so I understand), wanted them to misinterpret it completely and use it as an excuse for killing millions of people. I don't know god that well, but I do know I don't like him. As I only have his "actions" to judge him with. No, people are just stupid. It never wasn't literal. I think the story is literal in itself, but the language used might be too thick for us to understand or we may have lost part of the story. No one really knows because the document is so old and its context so withdrawn; it's just that today we have a wider understanding of the story's context. For example, in Jewish culture, much of the symbolism may have had obvious realities behind it to early Jews, but we, on the other hand, have no understanding of such things unless they are documented (which many cultures nuances are not). Do remember the Bible was written down by man, copied over and over again by man, and, most importantly, read and interpreted by man. Oh and as for atheists "lacking morals". I heard about a study from 1997 which interviewed 75,000 prisoners about their religion and it found that only 156 out of 75,000! (0.02%) were atheists. FYI 29,267 were Catholic. ;) Not saying it's "evidence" of anything; I just find it interesting. I also find it interesting that about 96% of Brazil says it's "Catholic," but looking at crime statistics and such you wouldn't know it. The same for Italy; many people are "Christians" simply by name; please don't confuse them with real, faith living followers of Christ. kthx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeydoo Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 No, people are just stupid. It never wasn't literal. I think the story is literal in itself, but the language used might be too thick for us to understand or we may have lost part of the story. No one really knows because the document is so old and its context so withdrawn; it's just that today we have a wider understanding of the story's context. For example, in Jewish culture, much of the symbolism may have had obvious realities behind it to early Jews, but we, on the other hand, have no understanding of such things unless they are documented (which many cultures nuances are not). Do remember the Bible was written down by man, copied over and over again by man, and, most importantly, read and interpreted by man. OOOOKKKKKKKaaaayyy You quoted me but I can't see why as you didn't address anything I wrote directly. You just kind of went off at a tangent. You don't seem to understand the implications of having an omnipotent god (Ironic isn't it. Being an atheist I have a better grasp of that than you). Clearly god wanted them to believe what they did about "his" book because he's god and controls everything. Sooooooo........ yeah. whatever. If man did all the writing/copying (over and over)/reading/interpreting what makes you think it had anything to do with god? What makes you trust it at all? It was all put together by people collecting (and changing) stories over a few millennia. Why can't you put 2 and 2 together and come up with the fact that it's ALL stories. I am not saying the bible, or any text, doesn't have value. But why put it above all else when the majority of it was written in a completely different world with different priorities, views, and a vastly less information about the universe and EVERYTHING than we know today. To me it's seems living you life by the bible and it's teachings in the modern world is like trying to write an essay about computer technology when all you have to use as reference is a textbook from the early 60's. In other words, wholly irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clonk Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 why do you people have such contempt for religion. You all claim to be so open minded but when it comes to traditional values you're the most closed minded people on the whole planet. I have always loved the irony of this myself. And joeydoo, I think the first step of having a debate is actually knowing what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangbang023 Veteran Posted March 19, 2006 Veteran Share Posted March 19, 2006 OOOOKKKKKKKaaaayyyYou quoted me but I can't see why as you didn't address anything I wrote directly. You just kind of went off at a tangent. You don't seem to understand the implications of having an omnipotent god (Ironic isn't it. Being an atheist I have a better grasp of that than you). Clearly god wanted them to believe what they did about "his" book because he's god and controls everything. Sooooooo........ yeah. whatever. If man did all the writing/copying (over and over)/reading/interpreting what makes you think it had anything to do with god? What makes you trust it at all? It was all put together by people collecting (and changing) stories over a few millennia. Why can't you put 2 and 2 together and come up with the fact that it's ALL stories. I am not saying the bible, or any text, doesn't have value. But why put it above all else when the majority of it was written in a completely different world with different priorities, views, and a vastly less information about the universe and EVERYTHING than we know today. To me it's seems living you life by the bible and it's teachings in the modern world is like trying to write an essay about computer technology when all you have to use as reference is a textbook from the early 60's. In other words, wholly irrelevant. You obviously have a loose grasp of the subject if you really think God controls everything. Christianity believe God grants us free will to believe/do whatever we wish. If we misinterpreted someone's writing, then it's our fault. After all, Genesis is a Bible work inspired by God, not written by him. While later events, including the entire New Testament, are recollections of historical events, this doesn't mean the entire Bible is literal. Why trust it? Well, that's called faith. Just because the world has changed and no longer holds the values presented in the Bible, it doesn't mean those values are any less right. Perhaps people simply choose to not follow them. That doesn't invalidate the teachings, it simply means fewer people have the will/desire to believe and have faith in something that isn't right in front of their face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk26 Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Help me out folk I believe Eve had her belly button pierced? Anyone? :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unequivocal Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 OOOOKKKKKKKaaaayyy You quoted me but I can't see why as you didn't address anything I wrote directly. You just kind of went off at a tangent. You don't seem to understand the implications of having an omnipotent god (Ironic isn't it. Being an atheist I have a better grasp of that than you). Clearly god wanted them to believe what they did about "his" book because he's god and controls everything. Sooooooo........ yeah. whatever. If man did all the writing/copying (over and over)/reading/interpreting what makes you think it had anything to do with god? What makes you trust it at all? It was all put together by people collecting (and changing) stories over a few millennia. Why can't you put 2 and 2 together and come up with the fact that it's ALL stories. I am not saying the bible, or any text, doesn't have value. But why put it above all else when the majority of it was written in a completely different world with different priorities, views, and a vastly less information about the universe and EVERYTHING than we know today. To me it's seems living you life by the bible and it's teachings in the modern world is like trying to write an essay about computer technology when all you have to use as reference is a textbook from the early 60's. In other words, wholly irrelevant. No Christian in his right mind believes God controls everything. Somehow I doubt you have a "better grasp" than me since I'm getting my degree in Theology...Sooooo...yeah. whatever. You, in all of your theological omniscience, seem to have left out two important factors: original authorship and the guidance of the Spirit. First, no one knows exactly how the original manuscripts (called autographs) were originally given/dictated to their authors; what we do know is that they were inspired and/or dictated by God and thus from God. People then copied them over and over again...you know...to distribute them. Secondly, the Spirit guides every Christian, as I'm sure he guided many of the scribes who copied the Bible, but man is not infallible. Man is not perfect, and man is apt to make mistakes. But man is not completely suceptible to deception from his own senses due to the intervention of the Spirit in our commune with God and the study of His Word. It's a difficult and complex thing to explain something that you can't know but only feel and I'm sure in your hard heartedness you wouldn't be willing to try anyhow. If age invalidates a document, then why follow the Constitution or enjoy its freedoms? I mean the 1700s help different views and priorities right? Or since you're in the UK, the Geneva Convention? Why even bother? Because there are basic, essential principals that are brought to light through interpretation and application. Just because the Bible is old doesn't mean that a principal such as "Christ can transform" becomes any less true or applicable. Just because the Bible is old doesn't make murder or rape or lust right just because our culture somehow glorifies these things. Of course, what do I know right? I have a very loose grasp of things. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentNewbury Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 (edited) why do you people have such contempt for religion. You all claim to be so open minded but when it comes to traditional values you're the most closed minded people on the whole planet. The reason I treat religion with contempt is because most of people who claim to be religious do not follow their religions values, basically; they're hypocrites.Another reason that I treat religion with distain is that religion has hindered development. Take stem cell research for example. This research has the potential to solve real medical problems that a lot of people suffer from. But who is the main party of people against stem cell research? Christians! Another little pet-peeve of mine: Sunday Trading Laws. Just because it's a Christian Sabbath day doesn't make it mine. So why should I suffer when I'm not Christian? Because Christians say so, that's why! Some religions think they have the right to push themselves into every nook and cranny of peoples lives, whether they're religious or not. This is why I hate religion. And yes, I'm farely open minded, just not when it comes to the subject of religion. In fact, while I'm on he subject of religion, I'll let you in on a little theory of mine. I believe the late Catholic Pope helped kill more people than Hitler, all thanks to AIDS. Nearlly all people in Africa are Catholics. The Catholic church does not believe in contraception but abstenance. So, most African people do not use contraception and instead try to "abstain" which ultimately fails because man needs to procreate (it's a fact of life) and they have sex and but, without contraception (which is against their religion don't forget!). So, people have unprotected sex and spread AIDS. All the church had to do was promote the use of condoms and AIDS in Africa would not be the problem it is now. I know this is going to sturr some opinions, but you have your opinion, I have mine. Edited March 19, 2006 by BrentNewbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacifica Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 no, there was no umbilical chord so they didn't have belly buttons since they were created and not born. i'll say it now cuz i won't be able to say it on that great day but...'told ya so!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeydoo Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 The reason I treat religion with contempt is because most of people who claim to be religious do not follow their religions values, basically; they're hypocrites. Another reason that I treat religion with distain is that religion has hindered development. Take stem cell research for example. This research has the potential to solve real medical problems that a lot of people suffer from. But who is the main party of people against stem cell research? Christians! Another little pet-peeve of mine: Sunday Trading Laws. Just because it's a Christian Sabbath day doesn't make it mine. So why should I suffer when I'm not Christian? Because Christians say so, that's why! Some religions think they have the right to push themselves into every nook and cranny of peoples lives, whether they're religious or not. This is why I hate religion. And yes, I'm farely open minded, just not when it comes to the subject of religion. In fact, while I'm on he subject of religion, I'll let you in on a little theory of mine. I believe the late Catholic Pope helped kill more people than Hitler, all thanks to AIDS. Nearlly all people in Africa are Catholics. The Catholic church does not believe in contraception but abstenance. So, most African people do not use contraception and instead try to "abstain" which ultimately fails because man needs to procreate (it's a fact of life) and they have sex and but, without contraception (which is against their religion don't forget!). So, people have unprotected sex and spread AIDS. All the church had to do was promote the use of condoms and AIDS in Africa would not be the problem it is now. I know this is going to sturr some opinions, but you have your opinion, I have mine. Cookie for you sir. If age invalidates a document, then why follow the Constitution or enjoy its freedoms? I mean the 1700s help different views and priorities right? Or since you're in the UK, the Geneva Convention? Why even bother? Bec............. ...ALL stories. I am not saying the bible, or any text, doesn't have value. But why put it above all else when the majority of it was written in a completely different world with different priorities, views, and a vastly less information about the universe and EVERYTHING than we know today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlogank Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 why do you people have such contempt for religion. You all claim to be so open minded but when it comes to traditional values you're the most closed minded people on the whole planet. I agree. It just shows the maturity level of Neowin, as much as I love this site, I wish admins would just delete these threads because it makes me lose respect for so many of the members who are completely ignorant about some of the things they argue. It also makes me feel sorry for them. Especially for comments like the one below: The story of Adam and Eve, while believed by many, is obviously not literal. Obviously not?...where is your proof? Sorry, just because your a mod, that doesn't make you the final word on matters such as this. Never again use 'obviously' unless you have proof. It just makes you look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangbang023 Veteran Posted March 19, 2006 Veteran Share Posted March 19, 2006 (edited) Many of the stories in the Old Testament are used to teach us. While the Church still teaches of Adam and Eve, those who study Theology agree that the story is probably embellished to varying degrees. This goes further into misinterpretations of the original text in stories like Moses crossing the Red sea (probably Reed Sea) and so on and so forth. If you sit down with the Bible and read it as 100% literal, you are only fooling yourself. The Church itself has been on record saying that Genesis 3, while true to some degree, may be figurative in others. No one is certain and we still believe in an Adam and Eve, but their time period and their decendants may be skewed just a tad bit. From Catholic.com" Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man?s body developed from previous biological forms, under God?s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter?[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. However, there are contradicting teachings that still leave us in limbo: In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37). Which leaves out the leeway given in the Catechism: "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" That Catechism states that original sin originated (no pun intended) from an actual act and I do not contradict this. However, it does not affirm that the entire story told is 100% literal and should be read as such. In the end, I was taught, in a Catholic school by a Catholic priest, that the story should be looked at with an open mind and we should never assume it's 100% literal. I'm no great theologian, but I have remembered his teachings well, especially how they actually helped my faith grow. And for the record, I never say I'm definitely right and I never hide behind a badge. Stop throwing around your baseless accusations. Edited March 19, 2006 by bangbang023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samanthala Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 I believe the point of the question was to ascertain whether or not Adam and Eve possessed this body part or not. The confusion came from the fact that belly buttons come from the umbilical cord being cut...but since, according to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, he was created from the dirt and Eve from one of his ribs, they would have no reason to have umbilical cords. Unless Adam had some sort of odd belly button-resembling wound on his side where his rib was removed...hmm... :blink: The poll didn't ask what your religious beliefs were, although it's quite interesting how so many of you feel the need to announce to the world what they were. So let's stick to the topic, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teeple Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 To answer the question - if there truly was an Adam and an Eve, yes - they did have bellybuttons - but the truth behind the story is that most of the old testament was created as a means for the early Jewish teachers to explain the root of life - how it began - obviously - no one at that time had the means to determine whether or not they spawned from evolutionary means. So some story had to be created to explain this to the lay person - all religions have some form of the creation story - the American Natives have theres as well as the Hindus and Muslims. To take the story literally would be a large leap of faith into nothing... Think about it - if that story were correct and there was an Adam and an Eve - then to say we came from Adam and Eve would be partially correct, because we really would have spawned off of Noah and his wife (being that the flood wiped out all other living life and only Noah and his sons were the last 4 men on the earth - with their wives). Back to my other points... most doctrine in the church (be your Catholic or some other form of Christian), can be tied back to a bunch of old men who sat around thinking this stuff up to control the masses. Back in the 1400/1500's, bishops could have 'relations' with other persons, as well as were very political (They still are political and probably still have 'relations'). Masses were said in Latin as only the well educated could understand and read anyway. There term marriage and sin and such are tools used by the church to keep the people in line - if we didn't sin in 'God's' eyes then there would be no need to go to church because our place in heaven would be guranteed already. Before I start my own flame war - I am a practicing happy Catholic (of 9 years now) and I do believe in creationism as a beautiful metaphor. I am more of an Intelligent design theorist who believes that GOD is a supreme architect who created everything and the evolution of the planet happend with some divine intervention. Anyway - that is my two cents... Good question though. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeydoo Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 (edited) I agree. It just shows the maturity level of Neowin, as much as I love this site, I wish admins would just delete these threads because it makes me lose respect for so many of the members who are completely ignorant about some of the things they argue. It also makes me feel sorry for them. Especially for comments like the one below: Obviously not?...where is your proof? Sorry, just because your a mod, that doesn't make you the final word on matters such as this. Never again use 'obviously' unless you have proof. It just makes you look bad. I hate to see threads go down hill also. Maybe if people were a little more sceptical, analytical and open minded to the possibility that an impossible being might not exist. Then everyone might get along better. See, it works both ways. I think the bible has historical value as using Egyptian and other historical texts, certain events have linked up well. This means that the bible can be a good source for study. I would have no problem assessing it for it social values also. I am a nice person though so I doubt I will be taking up stoning. (link) So I would be quite happy to read the bible. Would the people here who think you are "open minded" be happy to read this book. Thought not. Who's not open minded now? edit:hmmmm. The censorship changed the url. Just change the "*" to a "c" You get the idea. Edited March 19, 2006 by joeydoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentNewbury Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Cookie for you sir. Yey! A Cookie! :woot: Do I get milk with that? :D I agree. It just shows the maturity level of Neowin, as much as I love this site, I wish admins would just delete these threads because it makes me lose respect for so many of the members who are completely ignorant about some of the things they argue. It also makes me feel sorry for them. Especially for comments like the one below: Obviously not?...where is your proof? Sorry, just because your a mod, that doesn't make you the final word on matters such as this. Never again use 'obviously' unless you have proof. It just makes you look bad. Yeah, because he's a Mod, he obviously has the final say in the matter! Damn, man. He's just putting in his .2c. Even I can see that. These types of post get to me. When did anyone ask for your pitty? I mean you believe in a God that could smite me so I obviously deserve your pitty. Just save it for someone who give a crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E t h a n Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Yes, or at least Adam did, according to Michelangelo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentNewbury Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Wow... Adam had a small wee wee. (In your world anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berto Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Aside from this whole belly button thing, if Adam and Eve were the first folks having kids then who did their children marry. I know one of them was killed by the other and then he took off and had a family of his own, but if he did where did the other people that he met come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts