08 Jul 12
Originally posted by JS357I've got a new topic, did Adam or Eve have a belly button?
OK so there's this little bit over on the Obama mocking Bible thread, about the possibility of a challenging debate topic. No new challenging debate topic is mentioned there (so far).
There are of course, golden oldies -- evolution, evil, science, the evils of science, the evils of religion, the evils of evil, theological differences between JWs and non-JW ...[text shortened]... points made trigger any new thoughts on old ideas.
It is a link from:
http://idebate.org/
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
13 Jul 12
Originally posted by sonhouseInteresting. It seems more confusing, not less. Navels are evidence of being of normal mammalian placental birth, but surely they wouldn't remember having human or even just-before-human parents, being directly created and all that. Was God purposely tampering with the evidence of His role even before the Fall? Seems we need to flash the jaywill signal above Gotham City!
A theological argument could be made that dog, no, god, MADE them with belly buttons so they wouldn't get confused....
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Jul 12
Originally posted by whodeyHow is that a "challenging debate topic"?
I've got a new topic, did Adam or Eve have a belly button?
Arguing over the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is pointless if you
have not yet first ascertained that angels actually exist or have any evidence whatsoever
for any properties they might have (Like for instance how big they are).
I can make up stuff about Adam and Eve just as well as you could but none of it would get
us anywhere or enlighten anyone.
A "Challenging debate topic" might be something more along the lines of discussing the issue
recently raised in Germany of making circumcision of minors who can't consent illegal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18793842
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18833145
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18807040
This is a real world issue that has real life implications and is actually important.
There are questions of the morality of it in an absolute sense.
In an ideal world would circumcision of minors be permitted?
As well as practical considerations.
Is it better to allow circumcision in well regulated hospitals rather than ban it and have it done
illegally outside hospitals or in foreign countries?
This is a topic that is potentially challenging with no clear or easy answers and is also relevant to
present day real world issues.
Whether or not Adam and Eve had belly buttons is not a challenging subject.
Unless you count the difficulty of making a coherent argument on a subject where everyone is
just making stuff up because it's all fantasy.
You might as well debate whether or not Superman has trouble cleaning off indestructible
kryptonian sweat from his outfit. (bonus points for spotting the reference)
14 Jul 12
Originally posted by JS357LOL!
Interesting. It seems more confusing, not less. Navels are evidence of being of normal mammalian placental birth, but surely they wouldn't remember having human or even just-before-human parents, being directly created and all that. Was God purposely tampering with the evidence of His role even before the Fall? Seems we need to flash the jaywill signal above Gotham City!
14 Jul 12
Originally posted by googlefudgethat's not challenging either. the answer of course is simple; yes, ban child mutilation.
[b]How is that a "challenging debate topic"?
A "Challenging debate topic" might be something more along the lines of discussing the issue
recently raised in Germany of making circumcision of minors who can't consent illegal.
14 Jul 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIt is not that simple at all. There is strong evidence that circumcision provides some protection against AIDS (one of the biggest killers here in Africa). So circumcision here would be similar to vaccination (which also leaves scars).
that's not challenging either. the answer of course is simple; yes, ban child mutilation.
14 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadchildren don't have sexual intercourse. when they're old enough to have sex, they're old enough to decide if they want a circumcision.
It is not that simple at all. There is strong evidence that circumcision provides some protection against AIDS (one of the biggest killers here in Africa). So circumcision here would be similar to vaccination (which also leaves scars).
14 Jul 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritBut by that time its a scary prospect and most of them wont. I am not saying that we should circumcise our children, I am saying it is not nearly as black and white as you suggest.
children don't have sexual intercourse. when they're old enough to have sex, they're old enough to decide if they want a circumcision.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Jul 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually that isn't true.
It is not that simple at all. There is strong evidence that circumcision provides some protection against AIDS (one of the biggest killers here in Africa). So circumcision here would be similar to vaccination (which also leaves scars).
There is weak circumstantial evidence that indicates that circumcision might slightly reduce the
chances of contracting HIV if you have unprotected sex.
What does give protection is practising safe sex which incidentally prevents a whole host of other
diseases and reduces unwanted (excessive) pregnancies as well.
However even if it were confirmed there was some small benefit in slightly reduced chances of
contracting HIV when having unprotected sex that still wouldn't justify circumcising minors without
consent.
Heck it wouldn't be justifiable if it gave 100% guaranteed protection.
There can in my mind be no moral justification in allowing the practice of child circumcision in an ideal
world.
You can however argue about the practicalities of enforcing such a ban in the face of parents determined
to impose their religion on their offspring.
It is not an unreasonable question to ask whether it does more harm than good to impose such a ban.
I know what my answer is, and so does (apparently) Voidspirit... But that doesn't guarantee that we
are right and that there are no other points of view that could lead to discussion.
15 Jul 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadit's still not right taking the decision away from the individual. when they are old enough, they can decide if research suggesting circumcision can reduce the chance of hiv is a credible one and if they want to go ahead and hack off a part of their bodies for that specific purpose.
But by that time its a scary prospect and most of them wont. I am not saying that we should circumcise our children, I am saying it is not nearly as black and white as you suggest.
heck, if they hack off 100% of the penis, the chance of contracting hiv from sexual intercourse is reduced to practically nil... unless they use their tongue. so we may have to hack that off too.
15 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeDo you have any references because I heard it from a number of people, but do not have any hard references.
There is weak circumstantial evidence that indicates that circumcision might slightly reduce the
chances of contracting HIV if you have unprotected sex.
[edit]WHO website says:"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%"
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
Heck it wouldn't be justifiable if it gave 100% guaranteed protection.
Which suggests that you believe circumcision to be inherently bad? Is that right, or do you simply think that anything should require consent.
What about vaccination?