AIBU to find this slightly odd behaviour from atheist friends?

[handsandknees]

I am an Evangelical Christian. People who know me well know that. I am happy to talk about it if people want to, but I don't go on about it.

Last Easter one of my friends posted a long status on facebook basically ranting against the Christian Easter message and saying that she didn't want or need Jesus to have died for her, thank you very much. Up to her what she writes of course, but the tone was very aggressive and I wondered why. I didn't comment but later she sent me a personal message asking me what I thought of her post.

Then this week another friend posted a photo on my wall which said "Proud to say I'm an atheist". I haven't responded but just wondering why would someone do this? I am not offended just find it a bit strange.

Why do you think they would do this?

Apologies - I haven't read all 10 pages!

In terms of the OP I would ignore completely. They are trying to get a rise out of you. Why should you have to justify your beliefs for their amusement? They do not repect your beliefs, so just ignore. I'm hoping that they're teenagers. If not, they're morons and best avoided.

FYI - I'm agnostic. The fence can chafe a bit sometimes though

Not teenagers!

GeorgianMumto5

Many people, including much of the media, continually mistake "evangelical" and "evangelistic".

"Evangelical" = particular part of Christianity which tends to centre on the Gospel/Bible.

"Evangelistic" = spreading/propagandising some particular message, which might not be Christian, or even theistic. Thus someone could be evangelistic about atheism, Toryism, internationalism, blues music etc.etc.

I am "Evangelical", but have not been particularly "Evangelistic". It seems that's the case with many others, such as yourself.

Ah, thanks FrankH. I'm glad I didn't just dream up those definitions.

Yeah, it sounds like my approach is the same as yours, in that I believe it, try and live it and will chat about it if people ask. On the other hand, I'm not standing outside Tesco with a stack of gospels. (Not anymore, anyway - my word, that was an upbringing! )

Thing is, while there are plenty of people who consider themselves Christians who are perfectly nice people, whose belief in gods is just a harmless little bit of silliness, like being a Justin Bieber fan or something - they have taken the nice and enjoyable aspects of Christianity (both the Easter eggs/carol services and the 'Be kind to other people' sections) and binned the kill-the-unbeliever bits... There are other people who identify themselves as Christians who are blatantly misogynistic, homophobic, racist etc, all in the name of their imaginary friend. So when rational people object in strongly-worded terms to religion, if you are one of these nice harmless Christian types, then it isn't personal. But unfortunately you are allying yourself with a toxic and unpleasant institution and you're going to get the odd bit of backwash.

Isn't the same true of atheists, Solid? There have been some pretty toxic and unpleasant atheist regimes in the 20th c.

Up to a point (though Stalinism, which you are probably thinking of, meets most of the criteria to be considered a religion), but atheism is not one monolithic brand or organisation, so it isn't really the same at all.

Ah, there's another thread on the subject of atheism somewhere else in Religion / Spirituality.

And....Christianity monolithic? brand? Organisation? err, no! There may be monolithic bits sheltering under the enormous umbrella of Christianity (or more accuately, bits that like to think of themselves as monolithic) , but it's obvious that Christianity as a whole is anything but monolithic. And branded? Organised? Again, those words might apply to some bits of Christianity, but not to the whole thing (whatever the whole thing is - different Christians would give you different definitions.)

Christianity not organised? and bears don't s*it in the woods?

HolofernesesHead, things like Stalinism and the Chinese Cultural Revolution, to name two religionless regimes, operated as Personality Cults, so ran along the very same lines as a religion, with people being brainwashed into believing that their Infallible Leader (ie Godhead) was THE only form of truth and all actions taken in His name would lead to glory, etc. So it is disingenuous and also totally incorrect to say that regimes that were set up devoid of religion set out to achieve and/or carried out certain heinous deeds in the name of Atheism. Atheism was not behind the deeds carried out. Bad things happened to be carried out by regimes that were irreligious. This is not the same as Uganda imposing the death penalty for homosexuality based on Biblical scripture, for example.

Furthermore, such regimes were also not created to promote Atheism, rather, it was a tool used as a social leveller and to guarantee full and singular devotion to the regime, rather than outside agencies such as deities.

In other words, none of the crimes commited by such regimes was carried out because of or for Atheism. It's a popular misnomer and also a tiresomely popular piece of ignorant crap peddled by religious people basically trying to say "See? You can't criticise religion because Atheists can be nasty too". Which, even if they were correct, would be very silly.

But I doubt you will comprehend or accept any of this, if you genuinely believe that Christianity is not an organised, monolithic religion! Even the Church itself describes itself as an organised religion. BTW, from a theoretical standpoint, monolithic actually means something so deply ingained in society that it has seemingly been present forever, and, as such, is privileged and seen as innately true and incredibly hard to change, confront, etc. Heteronormativity (the assumption that everyone is naturally and automatically heterosexual, that heterosexuality is the true and correct sexuality, and the promotion of heterosexuality as right and superior over other sexualities, etc.) is monolithic, for example.

Oh, and what SGB said. As usual

Ingrained, not ingained, pah!

Faith is as individual as the believer. All religions have various denominations and sects. None of the established religions could be described as a single monolithic brand by anyone who knows anything about them.

Oxford, what makes you think I wouldn't comprehend that? You must have a low opinion of religious people. We could discuss the extent to which, for example, Mao's philosophical anthropology was determined by his atheism and therefore the influence of religious or areligious stances on political strategy, but a) I'm not a specialist historian and know my limits, and b) from a philosophical POV, it's a bit chicken and egg anyway.

Anyway, monolithic; interesting definition. If it's not too intrusive, could I ask what your academic background is? I ask because terms can be defined somewhat differently in (e.g.) sociology, from their more obvious use. The most obvious definition of monolithic, other than (of course) 'one stone', is 'large, powerful, utterly unified'. Christianity isn't that, as last week in Synod demonstrated. You seem to be using it more to say 'ubiquitous, all-pervasive.' Is that fair?

Of those three words that SGB used (monolithic, brand, organisation) the one I recognise the most is 'organisation', but even then...I've been around churches all my life and I know how fractured they are. Some more organised than others, obviously. This isn't a good thing, by the way. I'm not boasting here. I'm speaking very much from an English Protestant perspective; maybe I'd feel differently if I lived somewhere else.

I used comprehend because the old 'Atheist regimes commited atrocities too' chestnut is so puerile and it's so obvious why and how it is illogical, untrue and inflammatory, that I do tend to presume that people who come out with it aren't the sharpest tools in the block, sorry. And that sounds nasty, when I don't mean it to. It was just that coupled with your stuff about Christianity not being organised, etc., which made me think your understanding was fairly basic.

I don't want to name my background, because I would accidentally out myself (it's specialist, I'm published and I've written various things on Mn which might out me if I name the field), but I do mean (and would use, academically) monolithic to mean its effect and influence on society and culture, when all aspects of a dominant force in that society and culture are taken as whole. For example, one could take my prior example of heteronormativity and say that the monolithic influence of the church has been to promote heteronormativity, and, in turn, promote homophobia. You could counter that this is unfair, as not all Priests are homophobic, some will conduct civil partnership blessings, some are GLBT themselves, etc., etc., which is totally true, and also good, BUT the fact would remain that the church as a whole, the majority of what it does, the majority of how it touches people's lives and thinking, would be the monolithic promotion of heternormativity.

That is not my finest explaining, but I have had 6 hours sleep in 3 days (teething baby)!

Oh, and I meant to add, your last post seems to indicate that you are talking about individual churches or parishes when you disagree with them being organised and so on. This I can fully believe and see, but, eithout putting words in someone else's mouth, I think SGB was referring to a much wider scope, ie Church to mean Christianity as a whole, or the C of E, for example.

The Church is and always has been one of the richest forces in the world - how could it have got that way if it was as you described? Of course it is organised; why, the very Bible itself as we know it nowadays was reshaped and written by much decision making to fulfill a certain agenda at the time of writing. It is a propaganda machine above all.

Oxford, is it really puerile and inflammatory to question whether there is a link between beliefs and practices? I don't think so, not automatically, anyway. From a historical POV, doesn't the question of what historiography is come into play; for example, if one subscribes to a positivistic Groffrey Elton style understanding of history, it is possible to say with certainty that the atheism of any given political regime is incidental, but....does anyone think like that any more? Or have I just read too much Richard Rorty and Quentin Skinner? Whichever way, the question of the interplay between belief, and practices is a valid question in its own right and shouldn't be overlooked (IMHO). The question of the interplay of the historian's beliefs and interpretation is valid, too.

As for the power of the churches... It does depend which church you mean, yes. I was thinking of parishes, wider structures and denominations. It does depend quite a lot on perspective, I think (back to the above question).

Anyway, I hope the teeth come through soon and you get some decent sleep!

Holo: The Church Of England is the state superstition, despite the fact that vast numbers of people, quite possibly the majority of British citizens, consider it pretty much irrelevant to their lives. It's a wealthy, powerful institution whose higher executives get to sit, unelected, in the House of Lords and make decisions on law and policy which affect everyone, not just the people who are members of their institution.
The Catholic Church is another wealthy, powerful institution which has very harmful influences on policy-making in some countries. It restricts the rights of women to control their own reproductive systems, whether they buy into its bullshit or not, and also as an institution it protects child abusers as a matter of policy and has done for a very long time.

To deny that the Soviet Communist and Chinese Communist regimes were/are Atheist seems to me to be as intellectually dubious as to deny that the Catholic Church is Christian. I am a non-Catholic Christian - and disagree with much of what the Catholic Church stands for - but I cannot deny that the Catholic Church is a Christian organisation.

Many dreadful things have been done in the name of Atheism, as they have in the name of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other widespread ideology you could name. Many good things have also been done in the name of these ideologies.

What matters in the end is whether or not you are a person who has brought more love, respect, and understanding into the world - and not more hatred, suspicion, and contempt for those who are not quite like you, and who believe, or don't believe, in different things from you. There are, I am afraid, only too many of the latter, amongst both "religious" and Atheists.

This seems to have turned into the same old religion debate, but in the interest of the OPs question I'd say yanbu to be bothered about something posted on your personal wall (that's just rude), and yabu to care what others post in their statuses.

I am religious. Specifically Christian. Not really evangelical. I have friends that are quite evangelistic and will post a lot of what I consider to be rather sickly-sweet Jesusy pictures&posts. I have Muslim friends and Jewish relatives who post things relating to their religions. I have atheist friends who post about us stupid God-botherers. :o None of it bothers me a bit; it's free speech.

I agree CheerfulYank about the sickly-sweet stuff - I often agree with the basic message they are posting but the cheesiness of it puts me right off!

It has turned into the same old debate which is why OP should have totally ignored it in the first place (which she sensibly did) - the person who posted it didn't like being ignored because she then sent the personal message- so that was the time to just send a bored sounding one back saying 'we all have our own views' and repeat like a broken record if necessary. If people post for a reaction the annoying thing is not to give them one!

Glad I don't offend you our kid.

Missed out the :o

Never :)

For me, my religion is deepy personal and nothing to do with anyone else, so I've never really cared what others thought of it.