SMBC is a webcomic series that often puts your mind in places you never really thought of. This week this little gem was on ther page:



What to think of it, did Eve really have a Y-chromosome or did God work around all that? Which makes one wonder why He used a rib in the first place.

I LOVE SMBC!

I'm not very religious, but science would say "well that's where all the XXY nonsense came from!"

Eve, how about Lilith? Google, Lilith Adams first wife.

I for one believe that the created in Gods image passage means we are capable of compassion and love. Not some nonsense about the Supreme Being looking like you or I.

Well, I suppose if you take it all in, this is just one more reason why literal acceptance of the Genesis creation account doesn't quite mesh with a scientific understanding of reality. That said, I could refer to God's omnipotence (and thus ability to alter the DNA of the rib as It pleased) to deal with this issue. Then again, that's basically a theological example of the "A Wizard Did It!" trope.

Meh. It's a funny comic, and I don't really want to delve too far into this. ^_^

Literal acceptance, especially of Old Testament, is dangerous, I think, to opinions of modern society. Take for example the stories of Cain and Abel, in which the Mark of Cain becomes a rather prejudiced belief, in some denominations.

SMBC is a great read for irreverent, generally tongue in cheek jokes, often negatively portraying, or devaluing christian-based beliefs.
I personally love the extravagant science and statistic jokes, which sometimes get so carried away that a large majority of readers probably
don't  even get the punchline.

ancient sources tells that Adam and Eve (or Adam and Lilith) were of one flesh and it was their transgressions that had split them apart; thus adding meaning to the scripture man lying with woman so that they can become one flesh.

I don't take much stock in it, but the sources do exist that Jews from pre exodus believed this as a common thought.

If Eve was real I do not think she was transgender. It would have been hard making babies.

I don't know about Eve.

That said, I can't imagine what purpose a penis would serve God the Father.  So I suspect his "parts" are neither male or female.  I suspect God is both male and female.

I also suspect that Adam, as the first man, without anyone to breed with, would likewise have little biological need for a penis (or vagina).  And thus may not have been male or female.

But there are enough mysteries here to not know for sure.  There's other possibilities, if the story is literally true.  For instance, Adam could have initially been XY + XX (mosaic).  Or XXY.  Or whatever else, and only parts of him were "removed".

Or they very well may have had different DNA.  God creating a woman from a man could probably do whatever He wanted to do!

I don't think she was. (I have spoken)

Just a wild idea that occurred to me, but perhaps taking material from Adam was just for convenience so as to avoid reinventing the wheel; just toss out the Y, copy the X, and add a little noise to the copy for uniqueness.  It would be just like a software engineer reusing code from one project on another where a similar function is needed.

After all, surely even God doesn't want to do more work than is necessary to get the job done.   

God doesn't have a body, he is just spirit. The likeness between mankind and god is spirit. The body just a vessel to carry it.

Hmmm... let's see.  Okay, Eve came from Adam's rib.  Was that the same place Lilith came from?  But how did the rib go from a bone and turn into a complete human?  And if Adam and Lilith were the first couple, who divorced them and allowed Adam and Eve to be a couple.  Then again, there wasn't marriage back then.  So did Adam and his love interests commit a sin when they had sex?  But the Catholic priests and nuns who taught me all about sin told me if you don't know or believe it is a sin, then there is no sin.  And that's a great thing to know, especially when you want to do something that you suspect could be a sin but since you don't know for sure, you won't be going to purgatory or hell for that.  I'm sure Adam, Eve and Lilith were okay in that department.  But what happened to Lilith?  And did Adam get her pregnant too?

Getting back to the gender metamorphosis, if there's a school of clown fish and they are all female, one will do a sex swap (to use British tabloid terms) and change to a dude.  And he will get bigger, stronger and more aggressive.  (Typical guy!)  Not sure about the DNA thing though.  But maybe we can tap that DNA and avoid all this surgery stuff, not to mention all the other things we'd like changed.

Ribs anyone?

If we follow the chronology of Genesis, then the Earth was populated on the 6th day. Adam and Eve came afterward. So there were already a lot of people on the earth.

Perhaps the people, already here didn't call themselves man and woman. They may have simply referred to themselves as Ugg and Ugg. That will get around the bit where Adam and Eve are said the be the first man and the first woman.

Quote from: spacial on November 13, 2011, 07:15:12 AM
If we follow the chronology of Genesis, then the Earth was populated on the 6th day. Adam and Eve came afterward. So there were already a lot of people on the earth.

Perhaps the people, already here didn't call themselves man and woman. They may have simply referred to themselves as Ugg and Ugg. That will get around the bit where Adam and Eve are said the be the first man and the first woman.

lol, good observation. There were actually two different sources who wrote the creation story. The first story (Genesis 1:1-2:4) is just like you have described. God created "humankind" in God's image.

Another writer (Genesis 2:4b-24) is an entirely different account of the creation of the first man and woman. So technically, depending on which set of passages you read, you are right.

Quote from: spacial on November 13, 2011, 07:15:12 AM
If we follow the chronology of Genesis, then the Earth was populated on the 6th day. Adam and Eve came afterward. So there were already a lot of people on the earth.

Perhaps the people, already here didn't call themselves man and woman. They may have simply referred to themselves as Ugg and Ugg. That will get around the bit where Adam and Eve are said the be the first man and the first woman.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. You mean that there were already humans existing outside of Paradise prior to the fall, and that they were created nearly a full God-day (however long that is) before Adam and Eve? How then can Adam and Eve be humans numeros uno y dos, let alone the first man and woman respectively? Something doesn't add up. Those folks can't be Adam and Eve's children, born prior to the fall and emigrated from Eden. The time frame doesn't allow for it.

I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!

Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 13, 2011, 11:48:32 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. You mean that there were already humans existing outside of Paradise prior to the fall, and that they were created nearly a full God-day (however long that is) before Adam and Eve? How then can Adam and Eve be humans numeros uno y dos, let alone the first man and woman respectively? Something doesn't add up. Those folks can't be Adam and Eve's children, born prior to the fall and emigrated from Eden. The time frame doesn't allow for it.

I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!

There are two creation stories in Genesis.

One is God created humankind. No mention of a garden and two people walking about.

The other story is God created a woman and a man to tend to the animals in a garden.

The first set of versus supports the idea of "Old Earth Theory" where the earth is very old and God decided to place humans there.
The second set of versus supports that God made a woman and a man to live and frolic naked in a garden and to not eat from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Why God put the tree in there in the first place is beyond me).

I believe in Evolution so I find the beginning of Genesis to be a myth that explains why there is sin in the world.

Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 13, 2011, 11:48:32 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. You mean that there were already humans existing outside of Paradise prior to the fall, and that they were created nearly a full God-day (however long that is) before Adam and Eve? How then can Adam and Eve be humans numeros uno y dos, let alone the first man and woman respectively? Something doesn't add up. Those folks can't be Adam and Eve's children, born prior to the fall and emigrated from Eden. The time frame doesn't allow for it.

I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!

Annah is corrent of course, but I think what you're asking is why the difference between what you've been told and what is actually written. (Check out which fruit Adam was suppose to have eaten).

The reality is, these stories are alegories. They always have been alegories. There is Christian writing from the 1st century that accepted this and that the creation of the world was a more complicated matter than six days.

Children would believe these stories because they are children. Just as they might believe that a nice old man would come into their bedroom and leave them a present. 

It was really only in the 19th century that some religious types in the US started to make claims of taking the Bible literally. At around the same time that people started to believe that before 1492, Europeans thought the world was flat. Or that a Christian could have an option to accept the doctrine of an eye for and eye.

A few years ago, I was speaking to some JWs. They claim to take Genesis and everything else, literally. They get around the doctrines of Jesus by reducing his importance. They claim that the 7 days of creation weren't days as we know them but time periods. That each day may have represened several thousand years. Though they specifically dismiss the idea of milliuons of years or evolution.

Another fundimentalist group, which I don't recall the name, claimed that the original humans, as created on the 6th day, were ignorant and basically animals. That tow were selected, by god, put into the Garden of Edin and granted awareness. Their many sons and daughters would marry the savages but their offspring would inherit the awareness.

The traditional Christian attitude is that Edin is an alegory to describe defiance. The tree of knowledge represented something which they, Adam and Eve, desired.

edit. I wrote another paragraph containing ideas for which I don't have any evidence. They were just conjecture. After re-reading the post, I realise these are out of keeping with the post and the thread, so I have delete it. Apologies.

Quote from: Dana_H on November 13, 2011, 02:22:19 AM
Just a wild idea that occurred to me, but perhaps taking material from Adam was just for convenience so as to avoid reinventing the wheel; just toss out the Y, copy the X, and add a little noise to the copy for uniqueness.  It would be just like a software engineer reusing code from one project on another where a similar function is needed.

After all, surely even God doesn't want to do more work than is necessary to get the job done.   

If one is to take the story about the Creation of Man seriously, then yes, you probably nailed it.
Interesting thing is also that it IS possible to make a female out of a male, but not a male out of a female, as the Y-Chromosome in that scenario is lacking.
As you said, all that needs to be done is isolating the material intended for the cloning-process, removing the Y-chromosome and doubling the X-Chromosome, and thus you will basically have a clone of the original individual but with the opposite gender.

If you play with the concept, the text in Genesis do sound very much like Genetic Engineering re-told and described with ancient words;

QuoteAnd the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

With respect to Bishiwnen and Dana_H, that would only work if we use the computer model of genetic reproduction.

I realise it may seem so obvious especially since, (or because), it has seemingly become so ubiquitus. But the reality is, it is just a perspective.

The previous model, of a chemical response, was equally perspective. We tend to dismiss ideas that predated the discovery of DNA, somewhat arrogantly, especially as we begin to have some comprehension of the actual complexity of genetics.

We need to have some proper understanding of the difference between male and female first. The presumption that it's all about a single chromazone, either having an extra bit or not, isn't necessarily exact. Equally, the presumption that males make sperm while females make babies is very generalised. Rather like assuming Americans like baseball while Britons like football.

To emphasis this, how many of us have actually had our own chromazones sex tested? How many humans?

If it is all a simple matter of a single chromazone, that would suggest that the outcome would be definate. Yet it clearly isn't. There are enormous variations in behaviour, aspiration and sexual attraction.

I apologise for appearing pedantic, but like I suspect others, I learnt, after finishing A leval biology and assuming I knew everything, that nothing in life is ever that simple, especially human life. And the accademics who are feeding us with information have an annoying habit of only tellingn us what they think we need to know.

Sex determination is infinately more variable than a male female duality.

Quote from: Michelle. on October 28, 2011, 11:50:14 PM
Eve, how about Lilith? Google, Lilith Adams first wife.

I for one believe that the created in Gods image passage means we are capable of compassion and love. Not some nonsense about the Supreme Being looking like you or I.

Well i love you removed the hate statement from your signature 

Ok who came first biologically speaking ?   I mean they had to reproduce !