Seawrack and the Mother

DAVID STOCKHOFF · 01 Oct 2012, 19:20 · from 2012-October.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: dstockhoff at verizon.net (DAVID STOCKHOFF)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: (urth) Seawrack and the Mother
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W60AD62388C1233E8011148CF870 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W60AD62388C1233E8011148CF870 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1349119205.81968.YahooMailNeo at web84514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>






>________________________________
> 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.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net