One of the things we’re committed to here at Funkhousers.net (Yes, I just hyperlinked a link to my own website.) MWAHAHA is not engaging in the pointless debates that so often infiltrate theological discussions, and debates. We may discuss things to get to a principle or a greater purpose, but I don’t find debates, for the sake of debates interesting, and I believe that you all will simply find them boring. Too often philosophers, and theologians will spend hours, and write countless pages to argue and in my opinion, just hear themselves ‘speak’.
For instance, I had to write a book report on a book that looked at the different meanings and significances of the Atonement. Basically, what it meant for Jesus to have died on the cross.
- We must focus on what the symbolic view of what Jesus did.
- Jesus was the substitution for us, his death paid the price for our transgressions.
- Jesus’s death on the cross was to bring a true healing to the world, he was beaten, bruised, and murdered so we could be made whole in him before the Father.
- Jesus’s death on the cross was the absolute victory over the forces of darkness, the devil himself, and all of sin.
Um… ok. All of those can be true, and are true. There is a beautiful symbology we can take from what Christ did, and he was the substitution for us, his victory over all things not of God allows us to be made whole before the Father.
Yet, this book I had to read for my systematic theology class featured four professors critiquing and ‘prooving’ why their belief was right and all other ones were wrong. None of those claims are mutually exclusive and therefore there’s not need to create dichotomies about them, there’s no reason to set up warring factions because of it. Granted, each point has significant drawbacks, but the overall statement of the views are truth, point one being the most vulnerable in my opinion.
All the hullabaloo about Rob Bell’s book Love Wins (click the hyperlink to read about it) is quite reasonable to have, while I believe it’s unwarranted, there is some sketchy places the direction of his book can lead and therefore it’s good to discuss it. As an example, either you can attain salvation after you die or you can’t. Both cannot be true, they are mutually exclusive. Therefore, it’s great to have discussions.
Have you guys ever been in a ‘pointless debate’ where abstract issues are discussed that have no relevance on reality or as it seems they debate just to debate? If so, what topics?
– Mr. Funkhouser