[Humanist] 24.583 measuring the... Fall

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Tue Dec 14 09:37:12 CET 2010


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 24, No. 583.
         Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org



        Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:55:31 -0600 (CST)
        From: Alan Corre <corre at uwm.edu>
        Subject: That fall
        In-Reply-To: <1384958930.679782.1292280881499.JavaMail.root at mail03.pantherlink.uwm.edu>

I surrender.

It occurs to me that Adam was not circumcised.

I checked on "Yahoo answers" and found this:
<quote>
The 'official' answer is no, God didn't require circumcision until his covenant with Abraham.

But a more interesting question is: Did Adam have a tallywhacker to begin with? God forced Adam to work for a living and Eve to have children only as punishment for eating the fruit. So he designed them originally not to have to reproduce, and to live forever. There were theologians in the Middle Ages who didn't think they had private parts at all.
</quote>

At least I learned a new word.

Alan D. Corre





More information about the Humanist mailing list