Genderless Nipples account frustrates Instagram

[Knackfloh]

@bheerssen

Hell, all some of us never truly master the technique.

FTFY (haven’t sampled everybody though)

[Enkita]

@Skeptic

Well, I do ask why Adam had a penis at a time when the only other “help mates” for him were animals

According to at least one respectable Jewish academic, Eve was actually made from Adam’s os baculum (penis bone), which “explains” why men don’t have them but other mammals do. Obviously had Adam not had a penis, Eve couldn’t have come into being. So it all makes sense. About as much sense as Instagram’s policy or Mormon sacred underwear, but a kind of sense.

@Skeptic

Or are galaxies just Divine, uhm, emissions from Godly self-pleasure?

According to some historians of religion, in the earliest version of Yahvism, the sky god brings life into being by fertilising the ground in the form of rain. Thus the Earth is the female counterpart of God. It is left as an exercise for the reader to consider whether you would want to meet someone with a penis that big, but then the Egyptians imagined the sky as the underside of an enormous cow, so who are we to argue?

[anon61833566]

the nipple itself is overrated. Areolas are where the money is at.

[AnthonyC]

Not sure if it was the same show, but there was at least one televised transition breast implant surgery where they should the man shirtless, but blurred out the nipples in the post-op photos, even though they were the exact same nipples

[Enkita]

@Skeptic

Speaking of Genesis…why, exactly, did Adam have nipples in the first place?

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - 2013-11-08

[Akimbo_NOT]

@anon61833566hunter

Areolas are where the money is at

For rouge manufacturers perhaps.

[dave_b]

So instagram…

[Cynical]

@Skeptic

Or are galaxies just Divine, uhm, emissions from Godly self-pleasure??

That’s not a million miles away from the Shinto creation myth of the Japanese archipelago. Sure, they say Izanami dipped his “spear” into the “ocean” and the “salty droplets” formed Japan where they landed, but we all know what they’re really talking about, amirite?

[adonai]

Say what you want about Darwin, at least he’s mellowed out.

[L_Mariachi]

Why did either of them have belly buttons?

[L_Mariachi]

@Bobo

C’mon, not even a Christian, and I know this. Made in God’s image, so it follows that God has nipples.

If I were a theologian I would answer that “in his image” refers not to literal physiology, but the capacity for free will. The expulsion from Eden wasn’t a punishment any more than your kids growing up and going to college and getting their own apartments is a punishment.

[Enkita]

@L_Mariachi

If I were a theologian I would answer that “in his image” refers not to literal physiology, but the capacity for free will. The expulsion from Eden wasn’t a punishment any more than your kids growing up and going to college and getting their own apartments is a punishment.

“O certe necessarium Adae peccatum quae Christe morte deletum est.O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem.”

However, that is a very RC version of the doctrine of Original Sin and Protestants tend to be far more gloomy about it.

But there is no reason at all to believe that the authors of Genesis had anything in mind but a literal likeness - man looks like the personification of the sky-god or the sun-god and woman looks like the personification of the moon goddess or the earth goddess, hence the ban on graven images.

Nor is there any serious reason to believe that the Garden of Eden story is anything other than a “just so story” account of the drying out of the Middle East and the change from hunter gatherers to nomads and agriculturalists. There are several stories about the conflicts between the nomads and the settled peoples (Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau).

So we would have to conclude that you would either be a mythopoetic theologian - a teller of tales - or a prescientific one.

[Skeptic]

@L_Mariachi

If I were a theologian I would answer that “in his image” refers not to literal physiology, but the capacity for free will.

I’ve certainly seen people try that. It’s generally an unintentional admission that “Let Us make man in Our image” is meaningless nonsense when applied to a non-corporeal being and that the words in the bible cannot be relied on to follow their ordinary, plain meaning, thus making the bible a demonstrably unreliable source of knowledge.

[L_Mariachi]

Plenty of the Bible doesn’t even pretend to have a plain ordinary meaning. Proverbs, Song Of Songs, the Parables of Christ — obviously not meant to be taken literally. Why would anyone think something as clearly unreal and full of plot holes as the Garden of Eden was? Besides, it’s far more usefully instructive as metaphor than as history.

[Skeptic]

@L_Mariachi

obviously not meant to be taken literally. Why would anyone think something as clearly unreal and full of plot holes as the Garden of Eden was?

Indeed, why would anyone. Yet hundreds of millions of people do. More than 40% of Americans are young earth creationists.

[Frank_Nigro]

After all it is the “Show Me” state.

[Enkita]

@L_Mariachi

Plenty of the Bible doesn’t even pretend to have a plain ordinary meaning. Proverbs, Song Of Songs, the Parables of Christ — obviously not meant to be taken literally. Why would anyone think something as clearly unreal and full of plot holes as the Garden of Eden was?

Because the Bible is the collected literature of the Hebrews that various redactors felt worth preserving, and not a consistent account by a single author. Your statement is as logical as saying that the local bookshop contains Harry Potter books as well as Haynes workshop manuals - so the Haynes books should be regarded as witchcraft, or Harry Potter as a serious how-to about magic.