Defending faith / witnessing on Msnet, dilemma

[foreversanguine]

Every now and then we've got threads on mumsnet discussing faith in AIBU and they get very animated, you see believers and atheists engaging in a heated exchange of polarised views.

Seems to me that without fail you get just a small handful, sometimes even just one christian against a much larger number of people taking complete piss of religion ( pardon the expression ) , reflecting a big presence of atheists on mumsnet.

My dilemma is this. From a christian point of view, is it worth it, does it please God, as on one hand you defending the faith and witness, but also by helping to carry on the thread you encourage such a barrage of blasphemy, very offensive to God and a sin for the offenders.

Some blasphemies against God, against Jesus, I 've come across just in the last few days are very hard to read and I am not exactly super sensitive.
They were voiced as a response to the believers' posts.

So is it good to post on such threads or does it in a way do disservice to God ?

I am not implying that you, sashh, antagonise.

Some folk involved in these debates do (on both sides) - some deliberately and some inadvertently (as worldgonecrazy suggests, perhaps sometimes from frustration and the need to vocalise).

I very much agree with your points, joyful, about the lurkers.

I think there's a massive difference between the points that sassh is raising - which I agree are fair game for robust debate - and the comments that get made about faith in a more general sense. I don't have any problem with people criticising what organised religion does, or what any religion encourages its followers to do - if you preach "love" and then behave in ways that are full of hate, then you can expect to get called a hypocrite, and rightly so.

But the difficulty with so many threads, specially in AIBU or Chat, is that people then come on and tell anyone with religious belief that they personally are stupid or hypocritical for having any kind of religious faith, just because some people twist faith for their own ends. They seem to think that religion is automatically the cause of the problem, rather than the way people choose to use/misuse religion. If it wasn't religion that gave them an excuse for misogyny etc, then they would find something else.

I've had a go a couple of times at joining in the debates in threads about faith. But I'm not a very regular poster at the best of times and I find it really difficult to keep on posting. I do think it's an important Christian ministry to keep on witnessing to our faith in internet discussions. But it's something I find it very difficult to do -- partly because I get too emotionally involved, and partly because I talk so much more easily than I write.

I really admire people who do contribute regularly to these threads, and especially their ability to keep on being reasonable, and accessible, and to keep on showing how our faith has shaped our lives. I keep you in my prayers, even if I'm pretty silent on MN.

niminy - that is much appreciated. It's like Joyful said - there are more lurkers than posters, and I always comfort myself with the thought that at least some lurkers may be in agreement with me and even say a little prayer :)

sashh, I didn't think you said anything antagonising at all and have not noticed posts where you have. There is a huge difference between robust discussion and to a certain extent people trying to deconstruct our beliefs and loudly debate the ins and outs; and personal attacks. I've had a number of personal attacks, notably from one poster, and like to think I'm fairly thick skinned about it, but in reality it has upset me a fair amount, once to the extent I stopped posting on these threads awhile. To put it simply, robust and courteous debate I love, such as with people like Grimma and Himalaya who are not afraid to say what they think and not afraid to be fairly hard on us, but in a 'polite' manner, but when it's simply an attack, the whole Christians are thick and bigoted thing - that's just not on.

Your points are certainly apt for debate and I'm more than happy to have that discussion with you in another thread sometime :)

As more of a lurker than a poster - mainly due to time constraints, can I also add my thanks to the Christians on here (especially those who venture into AIBU!) who consistently try and explain why we believe - in itself an almost impossible task to someone who doesn t. I am sure you are admired and respected by many. Also to atheists such as Joyful et al who contribute in a positive way from the other point of view.

I am an atheist. I tend not to join in on the religion threads, although it is a topic that fascinates me, because of some of the polarisation you describe (the rudeness comes from both sides, I think).

I do find that there is a more recent strand of atheism that is jeering and hard line, like Dawkins in some of his recent media appearances.

I always thought being an atheist meant never having to try too hard, if you see what I mean. I am very relaxed about my lack of faith, and the fact that others have faith (although there are many aspects of organised religion I would strongly criticise).

Just keep posting. I think it is important for the debaters (in all topics) to keep going and not allow the barrackers to have the floor.

I am an atheist. I agree that some atheists on here are rude- unnecessarily so. But it does go both ways. I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that I must have no moral comapss because I have not faith, or that I should just put up with the fact hat religion, specifically Chrisitanity, has a privileged position in our society. Among other things.

And I do think that Christians on here sometimes see any sort of challenge as "Christian bashing"

I've seen something of that seeker, but I think most of us on this thread would certainly not take such a position, not from what I've read anyway. Bit of a generalisation to say 'Christians on here sometimes see any sort of challenge as "Christian bashing"'. Some Christians may well do.

There is a lovely thread ongoing at the mo (wot I started) about church and such. It is a very model of polite and engaged discussion. so it isn't impossible.

I don't usually participate in the debates on AIBU because of the rudeness on both sides. I know I shouldn't, but I take it too much to heart. Great to see a thread where people can discuss difference without mud being slung. I agree with you Eldritch, we should try and stop the barrackers from hogging the floor.

Of course you should defend dearly held beliefs. Everyone in our society should feel free to say what they think without fear or favour.

in real life, its often the underdog!

I've been on both sides of this - I used to be a Christian. And I honestly can't think of any significant way in which religion is 'the underdog'. Whereas there are many ways in which people with no faith are excluded.

more challenging the narratives that are told about religion in the UK.
That sounds more interesting - want to explain which narratives you have in mind and debate them?

I think in very polarised debates both sides are quite likely to feel that their side is the underdog. There is truth on both sides. While Christianity certainly has a privileged social role that comes from being an established religion (Bishops in the House of Lords, daily act of worship, swearing on the Bible in court), it is also true that atheists have managed to set the terms of debate about religion. Both sides see themselves as the underdog, atheists because of the (as they perceive them unwarranted) privileges granted to religion, Christians because they continually have to debate on the terms set by atheists, which largely reduce religion to belief in statements of doctrine.

One of the reasons why I find it hard to get involved in debates over faith on MN is because my Christian faith is largely about what I do rather than what I believe. I believe that Christ is the son of God, who died and has arisen. But it's living my life in the light of that that is the central part of my faith. Whether I agree with various doctrinal statements is of little importance beside prayer and meeting Christ in other people.

"Christians because they continually have to debate on the terms set by atheists, which largely reduce religion to belief in statements of doctrine."

I don't think I understand this- is it me being thick? Could you say a bit more?

What I mean is that the debate is perhaps not always, but often, about the truth of statements, such as 'God made the world in six days' or 'Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born' or 'Jesus came to life again'. Now, for the record, I think one of these statements is a myth (6 days), one is a mistranslation (virgin), and one a misunderstanding (Jesus was raised to new life). And we could have an interesting discussion about whether these statements were true, and what kinds of criteria we might use to decide this, and even what kind of thing truth is.

But that wouldn't get anywhere near the core of what it means to have faith, because that is not to do with ticking 'yes' or 'no' boxes beside a set of statements. In my experience, atheists are not very likely to want to explore what prayer is like, or what happens when you take communion, or the practice of devotional reading. Those things are at the centre of what it is to be a Christian -- not where you line up on the doctrine of the trinity, or the infallibility of scripture.

But it is these questions, particularly that of the infallibility of scripture, that fascinate atheists debating religion, and thus most of the conversation about Christianity is drawn to matters that for most Christians are on the edge of their concerns. Now, you might say that Christians should respond to these serious challenges -- and so they do. But it shapes the conversation in a particular, and fairly reductive way which makes something which is largely about practice into something that is all about theory.

I think a lot of the polarisation is to do with assumptions about the posters, or even expectations.

For example a huge amount of recent threads have denigrated to atheists telling (mainly) christians "what they beleive", and claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with their charicature of christianity is "not a christian".

It can happen the other way around, but to be honest, it is vv rare and i have only seen it a handful of times by one poster on a thread who is not backed up by anyone.

Some people assume they are being 'got at' when they are not.

I do find the over simplification and lack of basic knowledge of belief systems, including atheism, agnosticism and humanism on here pretty infurating though. Lots of people engage in debates unaware of how little they know wrt to philosophy and religion.

They are well within their rights to do it but when this is pointed out a lot of people wail that they are being 'victimised'.

"But it is these questions, particularly that of the infallibility of scripture, that fascinate atheists debating religion, and thus most of the conversation about Christianity is drawn to matters that for most Christians are on the edge of their concerns. Now, you might say that Christians should respond to these serious challenges -- and so they do. But it shapes the conversation in a particular, and fairly reductive way which makes something which is largely about practice into something that is all about theory."

this is what i was trying to say!

this happened a huge amoutn around gay marriage

Good post niminy

Christians because they continually have to debate on the terms set by atheists

Interesting further discussion of this in later posts, but I still don't see how that in any way makes religious people 'underdogs'. Countering that, some of the terms of the religous side have for so long, and to a large extent still are, not really been subjects for debate at all - e.g. it just tends to be assumed that its good to have faith. (Preferably my faith but any is better than none, lets be nice and multi-faith even if totally incompatible, anything but faithless). This sort of assumption isn't just a matter of words - it affects real life situations.

V good post niminy

What I said was that both sides feel as if they are underdogs. Not that either side is an underdog. It's a matter of how people perceive their position in very polarised debates. When we feel that people are attacking our cherished beliefs we feel defensive and got at -- and we can feel this even when the perception of the other side is that they are the ones being reasonable and that they are being got at.

Numerically speaking active Christians are in a minority, that's unarguable, and often do feel embattled because the default assumption in many parts of society is that you are an atheist. Many people who have had no contact (or minimal contact) with Christianity view Christians as weird [insert your own sterotype here]. In that context it's hard not to feel like an underdog.

Of course, atheists may have their own special reasons for feeling like underdogs too -- I can't speak for them.

I was trying to take some of the heat out of the debate by naming the emotional factors that often work to inflame it. But I think I just stoked it up by mistake.

(And thank you, madhairday and thanksamillion )

I'm not heated, just interested
Because as I said, I've been both sides of this.

the default assumption in many parts of society is that you are an atheist
Is it? I've never really found that. More like 'apatheist' - some sort of wishy-washy not-really-thought-about-it since school assembly 'cultural christian'.

Maybe whether one feels like an underdog or not is mainly a function of ones inherent personality because Christian or atheist, I've never felt like one myself. Its subjective to some extent. Whereas as an atheist - objectively there is exclusion and discrimination.

Darn it, there I go moving the terms of the debate to subjective/objective

Liking the term 'apatheist' - think that might be fairly accurate in many cases.

Notwithstanding the underdog debate, I know what niminy is saying about these kinds of threads often debating Christian beliefs or what are perceived as such, which may vary, apart from central tenets . They don't always get into what it actually means from day to day - there's more to it than a belief, that would seem very dry. It's a lifechange, it's a way of life, it's something that goes deep into every part, into emotions as much as thought and reason. BUt I guess that's fairly subjective and differs with each person - it's something easily forgotten though.