This debate was interesting enough that I actually read all of it. It sort of reads like Monty Python, with the main difference being that Python way funnier because it's both devastatingly brilliant and intentionally ridiculous. This one lacks the latter, and is worse for the absent juxtaposition.
Roughly.. The question is whether or not Christianity is good for the world. One guy says no, and/because its unnecessary complexity causes a lot more trouble than good. The other guy says yes, and/because without it it's pretty much impossible to use words like "good."
My version is way shorter than the real thing. But the real thing is done in the form of letters back and forth, so it chunks itself up nicely enough to trick you into continuing to read.
One of the things that I always find disappointing about debates like this is the lack of perspective. By which I mean, I don't think there's a good way to have a truly rational discussion of something so immense and profound as a "philosophy of life" within the bounds of what amounts to a single conversation. It's all fine to talk (obviously I'm a big fan), but it's so difficult to know what we're talking
about, that I don't think the point served is one of immediate or even semi-immediate resolution. It's just one conversation.
And, an integral part of the boundary defining the field of play is the life experience of the participants. It's no good to pretend we're arguing in a vacuum devoid of personal bias. To make an appeal to impartial rationalism. No such thing exists! I guess on a very small scale, sure.. but when you ramp the whole thing up, you're just going to end up with a sort of conversational theory of relativity, where the devaluation of reason increases exponentially as the complexity of intervening factors reaches critical mass. I'm givin' her all she's got, Cap'n, but I don't think she can take much more!
But then, for me, it all comes down to relationships and communication. Which (as one would suspect, based on my assertions above) is a conclusion bolstered by my personal experience, both with life in general, and with Jesus. I think that's what it's all about.
Interestingly, when it comes down to the two guys here, if I had to choose a guy (since I think it's all about relationships), I would probably choose the "Christianity is bad" guy. I don't know why. That's just how I roll. But, he and I would probably end up having issues. Because from my point of view, neither of us would have "positions," we would have a relationship, and differing "beliefs." And I'm cool with that. I'll leave all that "transforming of hearts and minds" business up to God. Think what you think, man.
But my feelings get hurt when people go out of their way to viciously attack my beliefs--like when they write entire books with the sole purpose of dogging me--especially when we have a relationship. That is also how I roll. Yo. And I've got a feeling that, since he doesn't have a deity to pin all that transformational responsibility on.. I'm going to get an earful. I'm happy enough to leave him alone--or at least converse respectfully, explaining my view on things and listening to his, without focusing on how hopelessly deluded we each think the other is, or simplifying opposing view for the purpose of a good lampoon. Hopefully we both learn something, and edify each other. Maybe even it'll leak out into the rest of the world. But I think this guy is not cool with "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone". No, he came here for an argument!
And for his part, he would probably just want to smack me for being stupid and talking on and on.
But I can totally understand that. Which is why I'm shutting up now.
Labels: and now.. what I think, debate, two bags of otters' noses
