Did adam have a belly button?

Canada
October 29, 2007 11:32pm CST
here is a very simple way to disprove christianity/islam and anyone else who thinks life started this way.. ask yourself, did adam have a belly button? if any theist has a good answer to this, take your best shot.
9 people like this
20 responses
@urbandekay (18314)
30 Oct 07
Are you joking, this doesn't disprove Christianity, it doesn't even weaken it. It is such a poor argument. Firstly, Genesis contains some very deep truths about human nature not about their origin; it's not supposed to be taken literally, like much of the bible it is allegorical. Secondly, even if you accept Genesis as history not religion then clearly God could have created Adam either with or without a belly button and enabled him to father children with belly buttons, so what is the problem? all the best urban
3 people like this
@urbandekay (18314)
30 Oct 07
What is it with athiests; what is this clutching at straws in a pathetic attempt to prove religion wrong. Are you that afraid it is true? Makes me think you are a secret believer! all the best urban
4 people like this
• Canada
30 Oct 07
the bible is either true or false.. if you pick and choose you are less christian then an atheist. and no, i would never believe in fairy tales, i just want to see what you people base your beliefs on, its amazing how people believe in this stuff.
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18314)
30 Oct 07
I'm not picking and choosing. all the best urban
2 people like this
@clrumfelt (5427)
• United States
31 Oct 07
When Jesus Christ was born, he had a belly button. Since Jesus is the "express image" of God, and Adam was made in the image of God, then I would say that, yes, Adam did have a belly button. But, what does it really matter at this point? I think there are more pressing matters at hand, and some of these moot discussions only tend to divert our minds from the things that are really important.
• Canada
2 Nov 07
so god has a mother?
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5427)
• United States
2 Nov 07
Yes, in fact, Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ, who is God. But then, really, why contemplate whether Adam had a bellybutton or not if you don't want to accept creation and the rest of the Bible yours is purely a hypothetical discussion.
• Canada
2 Nov 07
so jesus is the made in the image of god, so that means god also had a belly button and a mother.. i never knew this was a polytheistic religion.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
7 Dec 07
Dude, we're talking about God here. Do you really think that an all powerful being who created the heavens and earth could be limited by a freaking belly button? Personally, I don't believe the whole Adam and Eve thing is a true story. I was told when I was young that it was true, plain and simple. I, however can think for myself. Since much of the bible was written by man, and later translated by other men, it is prone to people making a few adjustments and adding things for their own personal flavor. Quite simply, there is no way for you to disprove a religion if that religion involves an all powerful being. Some people think evolution disproves religion. I think god created creatures with the ability to evolve and grow to be more than their predecessors. Do you really think religious people would read this and say "Oh no! I've been wrong all along. Adam must have had a belly button so god is fake!" Religion is about faith. As an atheist, you clearly lack faith. Still, that's your business and I would never try to change that. I would assume you are intelligent enough to know you won't change the mind of religious people so most likely this is merely an attempt to see how much you can anger the religious folk. Perhaps you enjoy the ones who say you are going to hell. I personally find those amusing myself since I don't believe in hell. Yeah, hell's been a bit misconstrued from the bible as well, but that's for another discussion.
1 person likes this
• Canada
18 Dec 07
sure there is, we have no free will if god is omnipotent.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
18 Dec 07
How would the presence of an omnipotent being preclude freewill? I really think you're talking out of your a$$ now. The mere presence of omnipotence, does not necessarily lead to the continued use of omnipotence to dominate the will of human beings.
• Canada
21 Dec 07
if X knows the future, and X existed before i did.. then X is the one who comes up with what I do..
1 person likes this
@dreamy1 (3818)
• United States
30 Oct 07
Very interesting because just the other day I got a book from the library by a theoretical physicist. I actually hadn't started to read it yet but my boyfriend read a few pages and he asked the same thing. I just thought that was interesting that I saw the question here. If you believe the bible one would answer no. Adam could not have had a belly button because Adam was not born of woman. For me the other question would be whether Adam actually existed at all. I personally think the bible is a nice story and I don't believe it so I have no clue.
1 person likes this
• Canada
30 Oct 07
lol.. the bible isnt all nice.. just take a look at the old testament :)
4 people like this
• Canada
4 Nov 07
it is... the quron borrows alot of things from the bible.. so if i say the bible is BS it automatically makes the quron BS..
1 person likes this
• Canada
2 Jan 08
if u dont accept the theory of evolution, then u might as well not accept the theory of gravity and still think the world is flat..
@agfarm (930)
• United States
1 Nov 07
Dear fighting....put your mind to ease. You already know the answer , now all you have to do is let the rest of the world figure it out. Peace to you my friend. A.C.
• Canada
2 Nov 07
yea i know, i just gota understand why these people believe in fairytales..
1 person likes this
• Canada
3 Nov 07
this stuff needs to be taught and drilled into peoples heads.. you need to be ignorant of science, history and general logic to believe in this crap..
1 person likes this
• Canada
3 Nov 07
because of what they do with human advancement... the greeks figured out the world was round, the christians take over and we dont find out the world is round till a thousand years later..
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Jan 08
Adam nor Eve had belly buttons. They were not conceived, but were created from our loving God. Their children did, but they did not.
• Italy
9 Jan 08
God could have created them with belly-buttons. Since he is the creator, could do this. If providing a living being with a non-funcional body part seems absurd to you, just think to male nipples. What are they for? Doesn't all this make you to think to something... as... uh... evolution? oh no, it can't be true! There cannot be any evolution since God created the Man as it is now, with incomprehensible belly-buttons and useless male nipples.
• United States
9 Jan 08
My appologies, that last part is for the one who started this thread.
• Canada
9 Jan 08
if you think god saved your child.. thats fine.. but dont be ignornt about it.."nothing you can say.." that is the biggest difference between the believer and the non-believer. http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1374595.aspx?p=0
• Philippines
7 Dec 07
It is really sad that many Christians don't know their belief well. Many take what the Bible says literally. The Creation story was created for this reason: to tell that there is a God and He created everything. Simple. Adam is just a mere representation. He did not exist. The Church accepts evolution. Because it's also a way of God creating the human race.
@paul8675 (750)
• Australia
7 Dec 07
Excuse me - that statement can't be left unchecked. Some liberal theologians, mainly within the dying denominations of Uniting and Anglican do but most Christians won't have a bar of this man made stupidity they call evolution. I go to a pentecostal church and I have not met one single Christian who believes this evolution nonsense. It is fast becoming a discredited theory.
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
7 Dec 07
Paul? Evolution is nonsense? You think it's stupid and fast becoming discredited? Where do you get these ideas? Seriously, provide me a link to a reputable source that shows evolution being discredited. I'd love to see that. It's exactly the opposite. Every day there is new evidence to support evolution. Deep sea fish that provide their own light, moles with fur grown over their eyes, dinosaurs with feathers, all these things support the theory of evolution. I'm not saying you have to believe it, that's your own choice, but to say it's stupid and becoming discredited is just ignorant. I believe in evolution and I am not a member of the Anglican or Uniting church. I'm Catholic. Perhaps the reason you haven't met any Christians who believe in evolution is because they'd rather pretend to agree with you than get in an argument. Personally God gave me the ability to think for myself and not believe everything that is written in a book that has been translated by various different people to support their own agendas. If he didn't, we'd still be accepting slavery, incest, stoning, and other terrible acts committed in the bible.
• Philippines
10 Dec 07
When I said the Church, I was referring to the Catholic Church. I don't think evolution is a man made stupidity.
@spoiled311 (5502)
• Philippines
21 Dec 07
the bible was never proven false. it is funny though that people willl believe in anything that other people say, but it is so difficult for them to believe in God or the bible. anyway, to each his own. we will find out when judgement day comes...i still keep on my belief that it is better to believe in Jesus now and die finding out that He doesnt exist than to deny HIm now and to find out later that He does exist and everything written about Him in the bible is true. i dont want to insist my belief on people who don't want to believe. no matter what is said and done, they will just find reasons not to believe. the bible even predicted this=the god of this age has blinded people from seeing the truth.
• Canada
21 Dec 07
LOL.. i stopped reading after your first line... THE FIRST LINE OF THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE lol..
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18314)
31 Dec 07
Incorrect all the best urban
1 person likes this
• Canada
2 Jan 08
oh, very good argument.. i concede
@paul8675 (750)
• Australia
7 Dec 07
This is one of those many pointless debate topics thrown up by non-believers. The simple answer is who cares how God created the first man and woman. It matters not.
• Canada
18 Dec 07
hm, does anything have a point? and, isnt this question, along with all other stupid questions according to you, all part of gods divine plan? and in saying that this is pointless, and if this question is part of gods plan, then you are essentially saying that one section of gods plan is pointless.. therefore, gods plan is pointless.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
18 Dec 07
Paul never mentioned a divine plan. Now you sound like you're regurgitating something you read in an attempt to sound intellectual. Not every Christian believes in a divine plan where everything is written and decided before it happens. Even people who do believe in the Divine Plan as it were, know that changes are made to the plan all the time. Otherwise there would be no point to praying, worshiping, planning, etc.
• Canada
21 Dec 07
again, if a person has the education of knowing that the christian god cannot co-exist with human free will.. this would all be evident.
1 person likes this
• United States
18 Dec 07
Honestly, I think most of us are missing the point here. Belly button or not, this disproves nothing. All questions of theism aside, one of four possibilities is the answer: A) Adam, being created, and not born of a woman, had no umbilical cord, ergo, no belly button. This neither proves nor does it disprove anything. B) God, in His infinite wisdom, knew that every offspring of Adam would have belly buttons, so He stuck one on him, for the sake of continuity. Honestly, if God is powerful enough to create an entire man, it stands to reason that He is powerful enough to stick a pre-anachronistic* belly button on said man. Again, this neither proves nor disproves anything. C) The op does not believe in God, and refuses to hear all mention of the existence of God. Additionally, the op makes claims that remain entirely unsubstantiated, both scientific and dealing with the veracity of one aforementioned Bible. So the whole question is a fallacy. This proves only that the op has too much time on his/her hands. D) God, being omnipotent, was able to sort out a clever way around this problem that did not incorporate either A or B. And being omniscient, He was able to sort out a problem that we cannot. And before one challenges me as saying that this is an easy out, aren't there riddles out there who can stump the best of us? And someone thought these up. Ergo, God simply found another way. Ultimately, acceptance of this option serves to disprove the original post, if anything. Point is, none of the options actually disprove any religion in any way. Thank you, and have a nice day. *Anti-anachronistic? I just made it up. Wordsmiths, help me out here.
• Canada
18 Dec 07
this is just a fun way to show how illogical and unreasonable the idea of creation can be.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
18 Dec 07
Who are you to determine the logic of any creation theory. Is it more logical that there was nothing a Poof! We had a world with water, carbon, and the creation of life from nothing? It's perfectly logical and reasonable to believe that an omnipotent being created the world rather than nothing turning into something with no explanation. Sure, use the Big Bang theory. Then you can explain where all the matter that produced the big bang came from and who or what created it.
• Canada
21 Dec 07
what is it with a hostility? relax man.. here watch this, creation science 101: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs&mode=related&search= why atheists are stupid?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dx5GEV-tyw
1 person likes this
@gkurt08 (233)
• Philippines
15 Jan 08
Of all the atheistic theories that aims to disprove christianity, this is by far the weakest. How would you expect this question to shatter the foundations of the Church when it cannot even make me serious in answering it. Sorry, you have to do a better job than this. I wouldn't even bother answering...
• Canada
15 Jan 08
you are mistaken if you think that this is any type of argument at all.. this is just to point out the stupidity of the religion... and its fun.. see. what i was trying to point out is that if jesus had a bellybutton and he IS god.. while adam and eve did not have belly buttons but they are made in the image of god, they should have also had belly buttons, or else they are not made in the image of god. however, supposedly they cant have belly buttons because their is no mother.. so, man wasnt made in the image of god ...if you thought this was a real debate... lol.. now THATS funny..
@gkurt08 (233)
• Philippines
15 Jan 08
That's because I have heard your explanation from above. Let us not play with words. How would God made Flesh survive for nine months in the womb of Mary when he doesn't have a bellybutton? I hope you know what the bellybutton is for and knowing that should help you realize why Adam have none. A bellybutton is not the deciding factor of whether man is created in the image of God. That would be shallow... Keep the arguments coming. Rest assured they will have no effect on believers. ALOL! You cannot convince true Christians to believe you just as they cannot convince you to believe them. As a Christian, I find it futile to engage in a discourse about God with people who don't share the faith for again, music is nothing if the audience is deaf.
@Adoniah (7523)
• United States
20 Dec 07
There of course is no way to prove or disprove that Adam did or did not have a belly button. The story of Adam and Eve is a very ancient pagan story of the beginning of mankind that was verbally passed down. All peoples have a similar story of how mankind got started. The bible as most call it or the Torah as some call it, is the story of the struggle of a people growing out of paganism and embracing monotheism. It is a history basically and a lot of it can be proven today and more of it comes to light all the time. As far as the Christian Testament goes, well, I won't go there. That is a little too much for me. But too much of the historical fact of the Torah can be proved for it to not be at least a historical record of a people. Whether you want to believe in G'd or not is up to you. But arguing about the exisitence of a belly button is imbecilic.
@Adoniah (7523)
• United States
24 Dec 07
So, Sir fighting, you have nothing more to say?
• Canada
2 Jan 08
if you think its "imbecilic" to talk about a question, a response makes you "imbecilic" as well. every question is important.
@santuccie (3376)
• United States
7 Dec 07
This is a good question. You already know that I am a theist, but I also believe in evolution. Assuming we evolved from apes, the first man (whatever his name was) would still have been attached to a placenta. If this was the case, Adam would indeed have had a navel like everybody else.
• Canada
18 Dec 07
wait, i dont get it... evolution says that the first humans happened gradually, and you believe that the first one was adam? and what about the whole.. i give my rib to make a woman thing?
2 people like this
@santuccie (3376)
• United States
18 Dec 07
I was just using the name "Adam" to refer to the first human. Like my original post says, I don't know what his name was, or whether it was a "him," a "her," or an "it." Supposedly 1 in 20 people is a hermaphrodite. And for the record, I do find the theory of evolution to be more believable than Genesis. I think it's just Moses' attempt to answer the burning questions of his new followers with the best he could come up with. I believe there was an Exodus, although I'm not one to debate whether the Red Sea parted, a pillar of fire blocked the path of Pharaoh's men, or three canes became snakes and Moses' one ate the other two. It may have happened, and I don't question the power of "He who has no name." But I wasn't around to see it, and I only know of one person's account...that being the main character of his own story.
@MrNiceGuy (4148)
• United States
2 Nov 07
I would assume he wouldn't, but how can anyone know?
• Canada
2 Nov 07
so jesus didnt as well?
1 person likes this
• Canada
19 Nov 07
disclaim faith?
1 person likes this
• United States
30 Oct 07
In the Eden story Adam is the first person. He wasn't conceived , he was manufactured, then he doesn't have a belly button.And I guess Eve or Lilith didn't either. Eve must have been given one when Cain was on his way.
• United States
20 Dec 07
I thought the belly button is formed on a newborn when they are born. So Eve would need one when she gave birth to Cain.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Jan 08
all I can say is thank G-d I am not a mother.and I never will be.
@owlwings (37883)
• Cambridge, England
15 Jan 08
You seem to have a lot of hot air here which has nothing to do with the question in hand! My answer is: 1) The information is not recorded, therefore we shall never know, since Adam is now dust ('For dust ye are and to dust ye shall return'). 2) The question is on a par with 'Did the tooth fairy have milk teeth?' or 'was the three bears' porridge made of oatmeal?' because the story of the Creation is NOT (nor was ever intended to be) a literal (word by word) truth: it is a myth and therefore has the deep truths that myths are intended to have. The fact that some of the Bible contains what is today regarded as 'fairy tales' in no way negates the value of the book; it merely makes people who think it to be word-for-word *literally* true (which 'words', by the way? The English words or the Hebrew ones?) look rather childish in the eyes of those who have studied mythology and belief systems. To ask such a question, therefore, is a potent indicator that the people who ask it in all seriousness have no more conception of what the Bible (or the Quran) is than a child has of Santa Claus and what he represents. I am a 'theist' (or rather a 'deist') in that I know that there is a God. There are various reasons why I prefer not to call myself a Christian (though I believe that the Gospels are essentially a factual record), one of them being that I don't wish to be confused with those who read the Bible as if it were a newspaper or a legal document when it is a collection of myth, history, poetry and highly figurative writings mainly concerning one small Middle Eastern tribe and the development of their belief system. It is nevertheless a valuable book, I believe, and contains passages which show deep knowledge of 'the Word of God' written with genuine inspiration.
@owlwings (37883)
• Cambridge, England
15 Jan 08
Your question, by the way, and the way you have expanded on it have a great deal in common with Screwtape's arguments in C.S.Lewis's book "The Screwtape Letters", which was written by a devout Christian to demonstrate some of the nonsense (and therefore the real truths) of Christianity. It is, of course, NO argument against Christianity or Islam which are both, at heart, valid religions - as are Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and many others.
• United States
23 Dec 07
“As a baby develops inside the mother, he or she floats in fluid inside the mother's womb. While the baby is in there, he or she can't breathe air or eat food. That's where the umbilical cord comes in. The umbilical cord is a flexible tube that carries oxygen and nutrients from the mother to the baby. It also carries wastes away from the baby back to the mother, so she can get rid of them. Your belly button marks the spot where your umbilical cord was once attached.” There would have been no reason for Adam nor Eve to have a belly button as the belly button is formed as a conveyance of nurturance from the mother to the unborn fetus. Therefore Adam nor Eve would have needed one as they were never in the womb and the womb is where the belly button comes from. How is it that this would either prove on disprove the Bible or Koran? The scriptures do not say either way weather they did or not and the presence nor absence of a belly button would allow or not allow reproduction. Actually the absence of a Belly Button could have played a big role in the Bible since the lack of a belly button on Adam and Eve would be one of the biggest events in the world as the children, grandchildren and the great-grandchildren would come up and say, `Why don't you have a belly button?' And they could then retell the tale again and again, to generation after generation, about how God had created them as they were never born of a woman. They could tell about their walks and talks with God, the wonderful Garden they had until they disobeyed God, etc… this could be how the record could have been passed down to Moses to be written. Word of mouth, stories from the past. I am a graduated student of philosophy and theology, yet I am not a Christian nor Muslim as I ascribe to no religion. So to disregard this as a religious viewpoint would be totally unfounded as I am a non believer in organized religion. Have a Great day and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
• Canada
7 Jan 08
lol.. theology, expertise in the unknown?
• United States
10 Jan 08
You reliaze none of those things ever happened. I say Adam don't have a belly button.
@johndur (3050)
• Pasig, Philippines
10 Jan 08
it wasnt written in the bible .but i assume yes he does since all people have it and if you will say the he is not born of a woman he is still a man that was created like god which in turn made in his likeness which is like us people.therefore if he doesnt have a belly button then he is not like us which would only mean that god has made a mistake.my answer is yes he does have a belly button.
@mi2ok02 (406)
• United States
1 Nov 07
There is no way to know for sure. No way to prove it but if Adam was the first man and the Bible is correct on how he came to be, then no, he didn't have a belly button. This is just trivial anyway. It really doesn't matter in the total scope of things. That is just one of those things that make you go "hmm". Fun to ponder but nothing to get riled up about.