• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Science and the Bible: Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons?

ideologyhunter

Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
7,569
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
If you wish to never again hear, speak, or read the word cud, I'd like to initiate a more vital science/Bible debate. Did Jehovah fashion his first two humans with navels, or were they more Ken/Barbie in design? Most Bible authorities have sided with the pro-navel position, in that He created man "in his own image", and thus, the first two humans would resemble today's edition. The anti-navelists have pointed out that the Bible's authors were extremely nonplussed with all things gynecological, and therefore pictured an Eden that was not complicated with uteri, cervixes, placentas, and umbilical cords. Early Christendom debated the issue fiercely, and often resolved disputes on the rack or at the stake.
At the Second Council of Nicaea (787 CE), Pope Adrian I renamed himself Umbilicus I, and told the council (referring to Adam and Eve), "Ventre eorum asperis" ("Their stomachs were bumpy".) He claimed to have an original whorl of Adam's belly button lint, which he had closed up in a golden pellet and wore in his own navel. On the third day of the Council, Thomas the Innocent of Worms proclaimed, "Ventres eorum plana sunt" ("Their stomachs were flat"), which caused an armed battle to break out. The Pope personally decapitated ten members of the flat group (called the Planarians of Worms, after the Latin plana, or flat.) He loudly called for Thomas the Innocent to be subdued peacefully, so that he could be put on the rack later that day. Thomas spent the night on the rack, but refused to recant his belief that earth's first two humans were buttonless. The next day he was partially garotted five times, scourged, disembowelled before the Boys Choir of Nicaea (Up With Populus) and burned at the stake.
By the time of the Fifth Council of Constantinople (1341), the controversy had raged through the church for six centuries. The pro-navelists called themselves the Protuberantians, and the anti-navelists were the Planarians. The church hierarchy tended to be Protuberantian. At the Council, Pope Umbilicus XII called for a Sanctum Bellum Umbilicum (Navel Crusade), a holy war to deal once and for all with the Planarian blasphemy. The Council debated the proposal and figured the cost of the undertaking. Ultimately, they decided to launch a down-scaled Sanctum Bellum Ruminatio...which means...Fuck!!...A Cud Crusade to settle the classification of rabbits. I guess we're back to cuds, unless anyone has studied the navel controversies of the early church.
 
I don't see why they wouldn't. You do not have to use an organ to have one. You cannot suckle milk from my left nipple as you could most lactating women's but that has not caused that nipple to cease to exist.
 
Most Bible authorities have sided with the pro-navel position, in that He created man "in his own image", and thus, the first two humans would resemble today's edition.
Also implying that God had a belly button, and was therefore Himself born of woman.

So much for being the first, eternal, Prime Mover.
 
I don't see why they wouldn't. You do not have to use an organ to have one. You cannot suckle milk from my left nipple as you could most lactating women's but that has not caused that nipple to cease to exist.
A belly button isn't an organ though. It's a remnant of the umbilical cord, which is necessarily an indication that the owner spent time in utero, attached to their mother.

"No mother" unavoidably implies "no belly button", in a way that "no lactation" does not imply "no nipple".
 
By that line of reasoning, Adam and Eve ought not have any adult sex characteristics, not having gone through puberty.
 
I don't think the story is absurd, provided you understand that it is a story.
The story provides some fertile ground for philosophical thought.
  • The first action taken by something that it knew it shouldn't do, but did it anyway.
  • In trying to explain why death exists, why do humans have this instinctive desire to blame themselves?
  • Who really is the antagonist of the story?
  • Do we see a cycle beginning with God of being the punisher, however, providing mercy (booted from garden, but clothed man and woman)?
Sadly, with the story being a bit indeterminate, some of the discussion can't be concluded.
 
I always thought Gen. 2 and 3 was more of a real estate parable -- it's all about knowing the zoning laws before you get stung. They were essentially at odds with a developer who had put up a covenant-controlled community with hidden penalties. Looked real good from the outside, but they ended up losing their shirts. Or actually, gaining their shirts.
 
I don't think the story is absurd, provided you understand that it is a story.
Fair enough. But a lot of people really do think that it is a description of real events. Which is absurd.

Acceptance of the absurd a prerequisite to asking someone for money to ensure what happens after they're dead.
Once one accepts alleged miracles as miracles, contradictions become miracles and everything becomes possible.
You can't prove 'em wrong either.
 
Did Adam have a belly-button? I believe we really have an answer to that, and we can say, 'No — Adam didn't. Neither did Eve.'

Why? Because your belly-button (navel), or tummy-button as it's sometimes called, is a sign that you were once attached to your mother. You depended on that life-line — the umbilical cord — for your nourishment from her body as you developed inside her.

God would not have planted on them a false indication that they had developed in a mother's womb.
But our first parents, Adam and Eve, didn't develop that way. I believe that God would not have planted on them a false indication that they had developed in a mother's womb.

When God created Adam and Eve in mature form, the day they were created they might have appeared to be, say, 30 years old. But God wouldn't want or need to create the appearance of a false history, any more than the mature trees created by God would have had growth rings initially. Those are things which would develop in their offspring as a result of processes later on.

What's more, this would be a tremendous testimony to God's creativity. Ken Ham once put it this way: Lack of a belly-button on Adam and Eve would be one of the biggest tourist attractions in the pre-Flood world, as the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren would come up and say, 'Why don't you have a belly-button?' And they could recount again and again, to generation after generation, how God had created them special by completed supernatural acts, and yet had designed them to multiply and fill the earth in natural ways that are equally a part of God's continuing care for what He created.
 
Did Adam have a belly-button? I believe we really have an answer to that, and we can say, 'No — Adam didn't. Neither did Eve.'

Why? Because your belly-button (navel), or tummy-button as it's sometimes called, is a sign that you were once attached to your mother. You depended on that life-line — the umbilical cord — for your nourishment from her body as you developed inside her.

God would not have planted on them a false indication that they had developed in a mother's womb.
But our first parents, Adam and Eve, didn't develop that way. I believe that God would not have planted on them a false indication that they had developed in a mother's womb.

When God created Adam and Eve in mature form, the day they were created they might have appeared to be, say, 30 years old. But God wouldn't want or need to create the appearance of a false history, any more than the mature trees created by God would have had growth rings initially. Those are things which would develop in their offspring as a result of processes later on.

Okay, but what about Satan? Remember this is the guy who tricks evilotunists by changing the fossil record. So, once they took fruit from the tree of knowledge, wouldn't he have given them belly buttons?


What's more, this would be a tremendous testimony to God's creativity. Ken Ham once put it this way: Lack of a belly-button on Adam and Eve would be one of the biggest tourist attractions in the pre-Flood world, as the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren would come up and say, 'Why don't you have a belly-button?' And they could recount again and again, to generation after generation, how God had created them special by completed supernatural acts, and yet had designed them to multiply and fill the earth in natural ways that are equally a part of God's continuing care for what He created.

Remember they put on clothing once they became self-aware... And once they were out of Eden they had no protections from animals and weather, meaning they had to have some durable clothing that was very protective. So if they were walking around showing they had no belly buttons, what kind of clothing were they wearing? Were they wearing crop tops? And the grandchildren wouldn't have already known the full story of their grandparents' origins anyway? I mean, wouldn't this be more like, "oh gawd, my senile grandparents are telling that story again."
 
Did Adam have a belly-button? I believe we really have an answer to that, and we can say, 'No — Adam didn't. Neither did Eve.'

Why? Because your belly-button (navel), or tummy-button as it's sometimes called, is a sign that you were once attached to your mother. You depended on that life-line — the umbilical cord — for your nourishment from her body as you developed inside her.

God would not have planted on them a false indication that they had developed in a mother's womb.
But our first parents, Adam and Eve, didn't develop that way. I believe that God would not have planted on them a false indication that they had developed in a mother's womb.

When God created Adam and Eve in mature form, the day they were created they might have appeared to be, say, 30 years old. But God wouldn't want or need to create the appearance of a false history, any more than the mature trees created by God would have had growth rings initially. Those are things which would develop in their offspring as a result of processes later on.

What's more, this would be a tremendous testimony to God's creativity. Ken Ham once put it this way: Lack of a belly-button on Adam and Eve would be one of the biggest tourist attractions in the pre-Flood world, as the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren would come up and say, 'Why don't you have a belly-button?' And they could recount again and again, to generation after generation, how God had created them special by completed supernatural acts, and yet had designed them to multiply and fill the earth in natural ways that are equally a part of God's continuing care for what He created.
Is there any particular reason you would cite AiG here? If we wanted a theological or dogmatic reflection, just about anyone that isn't AiG would be better.
 
Theological spin #1

Of course Adam and Eve did not have belly buttons, they were winked into existence by god and did not have parents.

The kids of Adam and Eve had belly buttons.
 
Is there any particular reason you would cite AiG here? If we wanted a theological or dogmatic reflection, just about anyone that isn't AiG would be better.
I thought people might be interested in what actual YECs/Christians had to say. So you think what an atheists thinks is better?
 
I'd have to look up the name. A pope went around covering up genitals on paintings and statuettes.
 
Back
Top Bottom