Did Adam have a belly-button?

Until yesterday I didn’t realize that there was a serious debate about whether Adam had a navel.  But, alas, the debate has been a serious one in the minds of some people.

According to both versions of creation in Genesis (there are two substantially conflicting versions in the Bible), neither Adam nor Eve was ever in a woman’s uterus.  So neither Adam nor Eve needed a navel.  This doesn’t answer the question of whether they had navels, though.

We don’t have the remains of Adam and Eve.  We don’t have their photos.  How would one resolve this debate, then?  Many believers are undeterred.   Here is one analysis that Adam and Eve had no navels.  Raptureready.com also weighs in with a “no.”  Ditto for Christiananswers.net.  It’s not always seen as a serious debate.  Here is a tongue in cheek account by posted by a Baptist Church.  The terminology can get a bit daunting.  For instance, there is mention of the “Post-Umbilisists,” those “learned theologians and scholars believe that Adam’s navel was formed after the Fall.”

This issue occurred to me only because a friend (thanks, Deb!) recently mentioned to me that her friend was a “Navelite.”  I’d never heard of this religion.  Well, turns out that there is a small offshoot of Christianity that distinguishes itself by its belief that Adam did not have a navel.  It was a big enough issue at one point to cause a schism.  I have this one word of mouth only; Deb’s friend was …

Share

Continue ReadingDid Adam have a belly-button?

What if Democrats had done what Bush has done?

Here's a provocative post by Byron Williams at Huffpo.  For instance, Williams asks what if the "Democratic president's secretary of defense were Ted Kennedy and our military committed Abu Ghraib-like torture?  At that point, would conservatives still be content with their "a few bad apples alibi"? Williams asks a good question: …

Continue ReadingWhat if Democrats had done what Bush has done?

How’s that “rebuilding of Iraq” going?

Would you like to know how things are going in Iraq?  Check out the White House National Strategy for Victory in Iraq issued November 30, 2005.
iraq-national-strat.gif

Here’s the backdrop to this report.  Smack in the middle of this report (under “OUR STRATEGY TRACKS AND MEASURES PROGRESS”) you can see that all-important connection between the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. occupation of Iraq:

“The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our nation’s security, this will not happen on my watch.”

— President George W. Bush
June 28, 2005

[emphasis added].  There’s only one problem with this guiding assumption, of course.  It’s totally untrue.  For example, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported . . . that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.

But back to the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.”  In the section called “Victory Will Take Time,” you can find this White House claim:

Our strategy is working: Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam’s tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent

Share

Continue ReadingHow’s that “rebuilding of Iraq” going?