Are belly buttons necessary to get into Heaven?
MarkA
fundie. During an office visit, the patient made a reference to the fact
that you cannot get into Heaven unless you have a belly button. Does
anyone know of this particular twist on the God/Jesus/Heaven myth?
I have heard of the debate over whether or not Adam and Eve had belly
buttons, but I don't know if there was ever an "official" consensus on the
issue.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
socode
> A Plastic Surgeon that I know has a patient who is a bible-thumping Xtian
> fundie. During an office visit, the patient made a reference to the fact
> that you cannot get into Heaven unless you have a belly button. Does
> anyone know of this particular twist on the God/Jesus/Heaven myth?
>
> I have heard of the debate over whether or not Adam and Eve had belly
> buttons, but I don't know if there was ever an "official" consensus on the
> issue.
>
If the process that led to this stunning conclusion can be in any way
described as "thinking", then Christians have indeed thought about that
very issue, below.
Hilariously.
socode
"There is no way to verify if they actually had one or not, but I
believe the most likely answer is no. A belly-button is an indication
that you were once attached to your mother. Because Adam was molded from
spit and clay and Eve from Adam's rib, there would be no need for them
to have features that only results from nature child birth."
Mike Painter
"MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.17....@stopspam.net...
> A Plastic Surgeon that I know has a patient who is a bible-thumping Xtian
> fundie. During an office visit, the patient made a reference to the fact
> that you cannot get into Heaven unless you have a belly button. Does
> anyone know of this particular twist on the God/Jesus/Heaven myth?
>
> I have heard of the debate over whether or not Adam and Eve had belly
> buttons, but I don't know if there was ever an "official" consensus on the
> issue.
Sounds like the next "logical" step for Calvinism.
If you've got an "innie" you got into heaven and an "outie" sends you to
hell.
Beowulf
ejaculated:
>MarkA wrote:
>
>> A Plastic Surgeon that I know has a patient who is a bible-thumping Xtian
>> fundie. During an office visit, the patient made a reference to the fact
>> that you cannot get into Heaven unless you have a belly button. Does
>> anyone know of this particular twist on the God/Jesus/Heaven myth?
>>
>> I have heard of the debate over whether or not Adam and Eve had belly
>> buttons, but I don't know if there was ever an "official" consensus on the
>> issue.
>>
>
>If the process that led to this stunning conclusion can be in any way
>described as "thinking", then Christians have indeed thought about that
>very issue, below.
>
>Hilariously.
I bet I can reconstruct the flow of "thought" that leads to that
conclusion and that I can do it 3 steps or less.
--
<http://www20.brinkster.com/beowulf9/gottod/Jesus%20Hates%20The%20Little%20Children.html>
Beowulf
ejaculated:
Come, come. Calvinists were never so crass as to think the saved
could be identified from physical features. The Elect and the Damned
are selected solely by the capricious will of our Loving Heavenly
father.
--
<http://www20.brinkster.com/beowulf9/gottod/Jesus%20Hates%20The%20Little%20Children.html>
Kate
Only for chickens.
Mike Painter
"Beowulf" <beowulf_i...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gnairvoa67bg8andu...@4ax.com...
Maybe they are neo-Calvinists.
You left off the "But I'm one of the select" part of their belief.
Mekkala
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:nebub.76653$Ec1.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Exactly. You know, I find it interesting that Calvinists are perfectly
happy to say that some of us are God's chosen and some are not -- but
when it comes to *them*, why of *course* they're chosen by God! There's
no doubt in their minds whatsoever that they personally are chosen, the
only question is whether other people are chosen as well.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
Orhan Orgun
Sacreed fertilizer. Calvinist phrenology. Wow!
duke
>MarkA wrote:
>
>> A Plastic Surgeon that I know has a patient who is a bible-thumping Xtian
>> fundie. During an office visit, the patient made a reference to the fact
>> that you cannot get into Heaven unless you have a belly button. Does
>> anyone know of this particular twist on the God/Jesus/Heaven myth?
>>
>> I have heard of the debate over whether or not Adam and Eve had belly
>> buttons, but I don't know if there was ever an "official" consensus on the
>> issue.
>>
>
>If the process that led to this stunning conclusion can be in any way
>described as "thinking", then Christians have indeed thought about that
>very issue, below.
>
>Hilariously.
>socode
Yes it is hilarious, snocone. Only an atheist would bite on that one. The only
people I know that would bring that one up for discussion is an atheist, not a
Christian.
duke
wrote:
>Exactly. You know, I find it interesting that Calvinists are perfectly
>happy to say that some of us are God's chosen and some are not -- but
>when it comes to *them*, why of *course* they're chosen by God! There's
>no doubt in their minds whatsoever that they personally are chosen, the
>only question is whether other people are chosen as well.
*You've* rejected God. Why would you profess to think you're of the the chosen?
socode
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:26:55 +0000, socode <ne...@socode.com> wrote:
>
>
>>MarkA wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A Plastic Surgeon that I know has a patient who is a bible-thumping Xtian
>>>fundie. During an office visit, the patient made a reference to the fact
>>>that you cannot get into Heaven unless you have a belly button. Does
>>>anyone know of this particular twist on the God/Jesus/Heaven myth?
>>>
>>>I have heard of the debate over whether or not Adam and Eve had belly
>>>buttons, but I don't know if there was ever an "official" consensus on the
>>>issue.
>>>
>>
>>If the process that led to this stunning conclusion can be in any way
>>described as "thinking", then Christians have indeed thought about that
>>very issue, below.
>>
>>Hilariously.
>>socode
>
>
> Yes it is hilarious, snocone.
Dear prick,
If you want to talk to someone called "snocone", I suggest you
find someone called "snocone".
socode
MarkA
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:26:55 +0000, socode <ne...@socode.com> wrote:
>
>>MarkA wrote:
>>
>>> A Plastic Surgeon that I know has a patient who is a bible-thumping
>>> Xtian fundie. During an office visit, the patient made a reference to
>>> the fact that you cannot get into Heaven unless you have a belly
>>> button. Does anyone know of this particular twist on the
>>> God/Jesus/Heaven myth?
>>>
>>> I have heard of the debate over whether or not Adam and Eve had belly
>>> buttons, but I don't know if there was ever an "official" consensus on
>>> the issue.
>>>
>>>
>>If the process that led to this stunning conclusion can be in any way
>>described as "thinking", then Christians have indeed thought about that
>>very issue, below.
>>
>>Hilariously.
>>socode
>
> Yes it is hilarious, snocone. Only an atheist would bite on that one.
> The only people I know that would bring that one up for discussion is an
> atheist, not a Christian.
Actually, theist have been debating this question for hundreds of years.
Like many things that theists debate, they are deadly serious about a
topic that appears ludicrous to us.
>
>>"There is no way to verify if they actually had one or not, but I believe
>>the most likely answer is no. A belly-button is an indication that you
>>were once attached to your mother. Because Adam was molded from spit and
>>clay and Eve from Adam's rib, there would be no need for them to have
>>features that only results from nature child birth."
--
Mekkala
pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
Rejected, rejected. Duke, "rejected" is such a harsh word. You do me
more credit than is my due. It's more like, it's finally occurred to me
that "God" is nothing more than a mad delusion bouncing around the dark,
empty space that passes for your head.
Beowulf
As a former Calvinist, I reached a point where I wasn't sure I was one
of the Elect. Of course, I became a Calvinist as I began to lose
faith as a fundamentalist.
The old skool Calvinists (think the Jonathon Edwards "Sinners in the
hands of an angry god" Puritan crowd), made a point that no one could
know they were among the elect.
--
<http://www20.brinkster.com/beowulf9/gottod/Jesus%20Hates%20The%20Little%20Children.html>
Mekkala
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
Then tell me... why do Calvinists go to church? Why not just do
whatever they want, whenever they want, since if they're among the
Elect, they're saved anyway, and if they're not, they're fucked no
matter how holy they are?
MarkA
Just because he has rejected God, is God obligated to reject him? Do we
mere mortals have so much authority over the Almighty One?
Beowulf
<joremovedath...@attbi.com> ejaculated:
Some of them do. When I visited a couple schools in Holland, MI/Grand
Rapids there was a lot of concern because many younger Calvinists
don't bother to uphold the standards of "moral living" the elder
Calvinists think they should.
For the most part, though, I think it's a matter of having a desire to
please god. Many Calvinists probably do think, when they get those
warm fuzzies at church, that they are receiving confirmation from god
of their elect status. They really don't have a theological leg to
stand on, though, to assert it.
Basically, I guess it boils down to them being hypocrites. Quell
surprise.
--
<http://www20.brinkster.com/beowulf9/gottod/Jesus%20Hates%20The%20Little%20Children.html>
Mike Painter
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:cmujrv8cke8o3kdig...@4ax.com...
Duke's on the downhill slide again.
Off drugs, drinking again or some other mental problem.
Note that his comment really has nothing to do with what was said.
The writer and I both commented on what others believed and duke can't quite
follow that.
Note also that duke will not admit an error even though that would be the
smart thing since it would show me up.
Mike Painter
"socode" <ne...@socode.com> wrote in message
news:bpcue3$4ih$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
This is from the man who wants to be called Duke even though it is not his
real name.
Phylter
news:pan.2003.11.17....@stopspam.net:
> A Plastic Surgeon that I know has a patient who is a bible-thumping Xtian
> fundie.
Why is the fundie visiting a plastic surgeon, not happy with how "Gawd"
made them?
During an office visit, the patient made a reference to the fact
> that you cannot get into Heaven unless you have a belly button.
And demonstrated their stupidity
Does
> anyone know of this particular twist on the God/Jesus/Heaven myth?
Never heard of it, but it goes to show what they'll believe
--
Phylter
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/regulars.html
Change "no-way" to "hotmail" to respond
duke
>Dear prick,
>If you want to talk to someone called "snocone", I suggest you
>find someone called "snocone".
>socode
Well, now snocone. If you start talking nice to me, I'll start talking nice to
you.
duke
>> Yes it is hilarious, snocone. Only an atheist would bite on that one.
>> The only people I know that would bring that one up for discussion is an
>> atheist, not a Christian.
>Actually, theist have been debating this question for hundreds of years.
>Like many things that theists debate, they are deadly serious about a
>topic that appears ludicrous to us.
Yet "you" brought it up again.
It may be part of a conversation of two people sitting on a park bench, but it
is hardly a subject for Christian/theist debate. That debate would have ended
about 6000 years ago.
>>> A belly-button is an indication that you
>>>were once attached to your mother.
And that's why the belly button exists.
duke
wrote:
>> *You've* rejected God. Why would you profess to think you're of the
>> the chosen?
>Rejected, rejected. Duke, "rejected" is such a harsh word. You do me
>more credit than is my due. It's more like, it's finally occurred to me
>that "God" is nothing more than a mad delusion bouncing around the dark,
>empty space that passes for your head.
Or so you so desperately hope. Again, why would one rejecting God even begin to
consider he is one of the elect?
As a mere starting point, those of us that believe are those of us reacting to
the call of God. I reach out to that call, and you reject that call.
duke
>Just because he has rejected God, is God obligated to reject him?
"Obligated"? No, of course not.
God doesn't reject him at all. He rejects God. God will always reach out to
him no matter how bad he rejects God. All he has to do is say "yes".
> Do we
>mere mortals have so much authority over the Almighty One?
We have no authority at all over almighty God.
Mekkala
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
Oh come now. Did you really expect anything else from Dookie-boy?
Mike Painter
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:55:16 GMT, "MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
>
> >Just because he has rejected God, is God obligated to reject him?
>
> "Obligated"? No, of course not.
>
> God doesn't reject him at all. He rejects God. God will always reach out
to
> him no matter how bad he rejects God. All he has to do is say "yes".
Since duke is never wrong all here say "yes" and we are assured of heaven.
Note this will only hold until Duck dies because it is unlikely he will
allow even his idea of a god to stay in his idea of a heaven.
Mike Painter
"Mekkala" <joremovedath...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns943860D8...@199.45.49.11...
Not a lot but this "drunken" type of response from him comes and goes.
It's part of my "Theory" of Duke. It's pretty solid. I can explain a lot of
his behavior, make predictions based on it and it can be falsified by him in
several ways.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>A Plastic Surgeon that I know has a patient who is a bible-thumping Xtian
>fundie. During an office visit, the patient made a reference to the fact
>that you cannot get into Heaven unless you have a belly button. Does
>anyone know of this particular twist on the God/Jesus/Heaven myth?
How can a navel-less mammal exist? How did it gestate?
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
>Exactly. You know, I find it interesting that Calvinists are perfectly
>happy to say that some of us are God's chosen and some are not -- but
>when it comes to *them*, why of *course* they're chosen by God! There's
>no doubt in their minds whatsoever that they personally are chosen, the
>only question is whether other people are chosen as well.
Sounds like every other religion.
--
"religion did for bullshit, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
MarkA
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:08:47 GMT, "MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> posted
> in alt.atheism:
>
>>A Plastic Surgeon that I know has a patient who is a bible-thumping
>>Xtian fundie. During an office visit, the patient made a reference to
>>the fact that you cannot get into Heaven unless you have a belly button.
>> Does anyone know of this particular twist on the God/Jesus/Heaven myth?
>
> How can a navel-less mammal exist? How did it gestate?
You can be born with incomplete closure of the abdominal wall, requiring
emergency surgery. The child ends up with a large, ugly abdominal scar,
but no umbilicus.
Also, after massive weight loss, one can remove the excess skin, including
the umbilicus.
Here's a problem in medical ethics for you: In case number one, the child
is now 14 years old, and terribly self-concious about his lack of a navel.
The plastic surgeon asks his health insurance provider for pre-approval
to construct an umbilicus surgically, on the basis that this is a birth
defect that needs correcting. The insurance company refuses, pointing
out that there is no medical need for an umbilibus, therefore the proposed
surgery is purely cosmetic. Who is "right?"
Mike Painter
There is no medical need, any operation is a risk and there is the question
of how future growth might affect the operation. . At 14 the child is liable
to be self conscious about almost anything.
There is not enough evidence to decide if there is an ethics problem.
However you have not presented us with one. The insurance company is a
business.
Besides, why would the plastic surgeon ask his health insurance provider
for pre-approval? :)
MarkA
You wriggle well. Are you, by any chance, an insurance claims reviewer?
Mike Painter
The only wiggle was in the last "question".
It is a business decision, nothing else. It would still be one even adding a
statement that the parents had insurance but could not afford the cost of
the surgery.
That's something that is getting rare these days.
If the question dealt with the doctors not telling the parents or the child
of the potential danger or long term effects then ethics would be involved.
Then the basic law of medicine would be in effect. Do no harm.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Here's a problem in medical ethics for you: In case number one, the child
>is now 14 years old, and terribly self-concious about his lack of a navel.
> The plastic surgeon asks his health insurance provider for pre-approval
>to construct an umbilicus surgically, on the basis that this is a birth
>defect that needs correcting. The insurance company refuses, pointing
>out that there is no medical need for an umbilibus, therefore the proposed
>surgery is purely cosmetic. Who is "right?"
Psychiatry is a branch of medicine, so it's "medically required", and
that makes the insurance company guilty of practicing psychiatry
without a license. Is that illegal where you come from?
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
&
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
duke
>> *You've* rejected God. Why would you profess to think you're of the the
>chosen?
>Duke's on the downhill slide again.
>Off drugs, drinking again or some other mental problem.
Actually it's called working too much, and not having enough time to laugh at
your silly ideas.
>Note that his comment really has nothing to do with what was said.
>The writer and I both commented on what others believed and duke can't quite
>follow that.
What others believe is what you believe.
Note how you can't talk to people who talk to you. You talk to others when one
talks to you.
But I don't blame you for being embarassed. You do a great job of doing it to
yourself.
>Note also that duke will not admit an error even though that would be the
>smart thing since it would show me up.
You start your posts off doing that.
socode
That would require that _I_ start talking "nice"
to you, and have faith that you would reciprocate.
Since you claim to be a Christian, it would surely
be more fitting for you to lead by glorious example.
socode
duke
>> Well, now snocone. If you start talking nice to
> > me, I'll start talking nice to you.
>That would require that _I_ start talking "nice"
>to you, and have faith that you would reciprocate.
Why of course. Why would you question that?
>Since you claim to be a Christian, it would surely
>be more fitting for you to lead by glorious example.
No, you started first. You need to take the lead on correcting yourself.
socode
>>Since you claim to be a Christian, it would surely
>>be more fitting for you to lead by glorious example.
> No, you started first.
How very Christian of you, that is to say, a childish
refusal to take responsibility.
socode