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 ?

Niminypiminy

But it does come back to belief/feeling though surely?

I mean, at school and for a time when I lived with a religious family as a teenager I have "prayed" as in the practice of kneeling down, pressing hands together, bowing head and repeating the words. I have even "opened my heart" to the idea at times, but nothing happened for me.

From the outside it may have looked like the practice of prayer was the same for me and for the person next to me. But from the inside it was quite different - and that comes down (I think) to whether you believe there is an entity with which you are having a relationship through the practice of prayer.

It's true that you do have to believe that there's a God to have a relationship with him. I'm not saying that belief has no importance -- merely that the importance of credal statements is overestimated in these discussions. And in terms of the questions raised by the OP, about witnessing and defending faith, it is wearisome to be always talking about things which are not central to your life as a Christian, because they are wrongly thought to be the most important things by others.

I guess the problem then is the difference between "witnessing" and engaging in philosophical discussion about different belief systems.

I guess if there are people open to the idea of god, and exploring their relationship with him, they would want to chat with you about the practice and relationship.

But if they are trying to understand the basis of belief, how you deal with it's contradictions and how you (generically, i mean..) justify the place of religion in public life then not so much.

FWIW I observe this tension in the Alpha Course model which is advertised as being about exploring the meaning of life and Christianity's view on it,, but pretty quickly dispenses with that and gets to the relationship with "god" ...not that I've been in one, but friends who have say that.

But what if someone is not "open to the idea of God?" Does that mean they can't join in the discussion?

Not at all Seeker (at least I hope not)....just trying to articulate why these discussions can be frustrating.

One party wants to talk about their relationship with an entity that the other party thinks is nonexistent.

If you are asking about the basis of belief, then pretty soon you will get into questions of practice, because the basis of belief is, fundamentally, the experience of God - rather than philosophical principles.

But if you're talkking to someone who is not interested in the experience of God, or who refuses to believe that you have good grounds to trust your own experience, then that is frustrating too.

It come down to "you have to have faith"

It does get frustrating, because these things go round in circles - lots of talk about theory and doctrine and what we believe and challenging us to 'prove' something, but little time for what actually helps us believe it - experience, practise, feelings. I think these elements are all important - only practise would be dry, only feelings could be subjective and superficial.

Himalaya, your point about religion claiming morality is a good one. For me, my faith has caused me to realise that morality comes from God but certainly isn't restricted to those with faith. For me, good works and innate morality happens because everyone is made in God's image. So there's no point scoring to be had, we all have the ability to be good, moral, loving, caring etc. And most people show these kind of characteristics in varying ways.

My faith, I believe, takes me to the source of all that, and highlights the opposite of it, the crap that can be done, and that we all do, again in varying amounts and ways. And sets me free from the consequences of such. It's great and I love it

^GrimmaTheNome Fri 29-Jun-12 21:49:07

Back to the OP - it did occur to me that, whether it pleases God or not, Jesus predicted insults - Mat 5:11

Oh dear, does that mean we're doing you out of reward in heaven if we play nicely? grin^

Oh quick, someone throw some insults!

Which part of us is made in God's image that causes us to have innate morality and do good works?

And is it also a part of other animals (primates?) which also appear to have some morality and help their fellows?

And if so, why is it that we are told that only humans will go to heaven as only they have souls?

Of course animals will be in heaven :) The Lion will lie with the Lamb, and all that....seriously though, we may have been 'told' that but truth is no one knows how it all works. I like to think I'll see my beloved dogs from my past again

Innate morality - well, imo God is good, so anything good we do is because God is good. Simplistic? Quite possibly. Works for me.

"but truth is no one knows how it all works"

And I think that is the problem. Because so much guess work, so much making it fit what an individual wants it to be or a corporate religion wants it to be. How can you tell what is true? How do you know that you are not just using the bits you like the sound of? Is it a case of needing a god as something to focus your own feelings?

All gets very confusing. Which I suppose is why there are so many questions related to doctrine(?) as people want to know what anchors the faith that other people have.

Yep. OK, with that particular phrase I was talking about the 'do the animals go to heaven' thing. There is no central biblical doctrine for this - a few nice happy passages mentioning animals in heaven, but no 'animals will get into heaven' kind of thing. So I'm laid back about it, and think there will be animals, whether ones we know or don't

For me the doctrine of the bible as set out in the creed does make sense and is backed up in experience, which goes back to what we were discussing. I can understand why it can all seem so chaotic though, especially when Christians argue among themselves about doctrine. I like to think most christians agree on the most important and non negotiable points.

This is why I have found alpha etc to be a good thing - places for people to explore not only their own questions but the history and the doctrine and what it's all grounded in, to find out that it's not really so messed up and subjective but that there is something more than conjecture at the centre of it all.

The reason I mentioned animals is because I was told in primary school(RC) that man was special (created in God's image etc) and so had a soul and would go to heaven as opposed to animals who weren't, didn't and so wouldn't. Unfortunately this information was given to me shortly after my budgie had died and so caused me a lot of upset. My parents had reassured me that he would now be happy in heaven. I think some of my confusion may have started around then