(urth) Seawrack and the Mother

DAVID STOCKHOFF dstockhoff at verizon.net
Mon Oct 1 12:20:05 PDT 2012

> From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>To: "urth at urth.net" <urth at urth.net> 
>Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 2:59 PM
>Subject: (urth) Seawrack and the Mother
>Heh, though I think Adam and Eve are incestuous. Given that she was cloned from cells of Adam's
>rib, they are identical (almost) twins. I have a half-baked theological theory that Original Sin
>involved the sin of incestuous lust, hence the fig leaves being the first response to "knowledge".
>Thus you have the judeo-christian reversal on the surrounding religions, in which the gods were 
>incestuous but the people were not. I think religion is a better motivator if sin and the blame for 
>it goes to the people, rather than the gods.                           
>Yes, exactly. Adam did not create Eve, but his material was used in her creation, Galatea-like. So you have the usual questions: why create a man without a woman at all? what kind of man could he have been? were his genitalia retrofitted? And so on. 
>We could theorize that Adam was in fact a kind of vertebrate sponge capable of reproducing asexually but who did so only once before his design was reconsidered. Except that we'd have to explain how asexual reproduction could produce a female in the first place. Again, look to the (parthenogenetic) fish and lizards, right, Lee? ;)
>As for your second point---that would surely represent a small step in moral evolution.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20121001/3b96ee9f/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the Urth mailing list