How do I tell my friends I don't want to do the Alpha course?

[BumperliciousVsTheDailyHate]

Some lovely friends of mine have just asked me and DH if we want to do the Alpha Course. I'm not completely adverse to it but I don't particularly want to at the moment for several reasons:

1. I work 9 hour days, and by the time I get done with dinner and putting 2 yo DD to bed I get about 2 hours before having to go bed, the last thing I want to do is go and be sociable, articulate and thoughtful
2. I'm an atheist, though I was into religion and church until I was a teen then got completely put off it after my mum dragged me a along to a born-again Christian church.
3. We couldn't get a babysitter, though I could go on my own, I just really don't want to
4. I don't think it would make me change how I feel, I don't want it to change how I feel, I am perfectly happy as an atheist. I think it would be a waste of time.

Can anyone help me let my friends down in a nice way, that doesn't belittle the way they feel. We have discussed religion, and they know how I feel. They are very strong in their beliefs and very up front about them, though not in a pressurising way. They are really lovely and I don't want to offend them but to be honest I struggle to muster up the energy to make conversation with my husband at the moment. But I need a better reason than 'I can't be bothered'. I'm not adverse to the Alpha Course per se, I have seen very good reviews on it, but it smacks a little of brain washing to me.

What do I say?

yes oldlady that was one was quite uplifting to a point. But he couldn't quite restrain his pride in his own brilliant thinking at the end

Why should he?

well I was being a bit sarcastic. It is just atheists like that think they have thought of everything, think they know what the 'opposition' thinks when usually they don't, think they are something revolutionary and new, when in fact, they are just taking what Christ said and taking God out of it which is what a lot of Christians do anyway but aren't quite so self indulgent about it.

let me put it another way. He says 'superstitions and supernaturalism have never done anything more than harm us' which is terribly arrogant and just not true. When I see groups of atheists renouncing all their possessions and dedicating their life to helping the poor then I'll be impressed by their moral superiority.
[disclaimer - not tarring all atheists with the same brush]

Anyone who posts their own creed on the net - whether atheist or not - is somewhat likely to be a bit full of themselves don't you think?

pofaced, I like your definition of what Christianity started out as to a point but would take issue that it was 'hijacked by the church and Paul'. Yes, I can't argue that the Church as an institution through the ages hasn't done grave damage to what the roots and intentions of those first century believers, but the church originally was in the main on the right path. A good book is Lion's the history of Christianity, not too wordy but has most of the facts, another is Early Christian Writings which contains accounts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries (and beyond I think) and early creeds etc, it's pretty interesting.
How did Paul hijack Christianity? Genuinely interested. I have a lot of time for Paul, but then I would, being one of those nutters that keeps getting hostility (sigh...) I have studied his writings in a fair amount of depth and find them to be consistent with and complimentary to Jesus. Yes I know all the arguments, oppression of women etc, but context based study throws some of this stuff into new and pretty liberating lights.

As a (possibly-ex, not sure) evangelical, I do have a lot of issues with Paul.

If you want the radical stuff, go for what Jesus said!

But...but... if Paul was wrong about his interpretation of the gospels, why on earth didn't God just leave him on the road to Damascus? Or strike him dead for persecuting Christians, not convert him and then let him hijack and mess up the whole thing.

Free will.

is that your answer to me or Grimma, pofaced? being a bit fick tonight (tooo tired)
Why a possibly ex evangelical weegie?

But couldn't God at least have stopped Paul's works becoming canonical if they weren't really what he wanted. Seems a bit careless to go to all that trouble of incarnation, death and resurrection and then have someone you've gone to particular effort (blinding lights and all) to get onside ballsing it up so soon.

Decrying Paul really doesn't wash, though I can see why one might want to.

with you there grimma

I'm probably an evangelical in the classical sense

ie I accept the authority of scripture but am free to interpret bits of it as I can, such as allegorically, culturally etc ....

But I choose not to be aligned with what Evangelicalism is coming to stand for - ie lack of tolerance, increasingly right wing, etc. I especially want to distance myself from any idea of the religious right.

I'm probably more post-evangelical these days - people like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell etc as well as the Liberation Theologians are more representative of what I think.

But I still go to a self defined evangelical church ......

Basically confused

Yes - 'evangelical' has become corrupted. It surely used to mean people who took the Gospel seriously enough to do what it said and evangelise.

sorry too tired to discuss tonight just had PTA meeting And not supposed to be on religion threads

Sorry for inadvertently not dissing Hindus enough. When I said that Christians make the worst pests of themselves I meant specifically with regard to constantly trying to drag other people in: it's the only superstition system that operates along the lines of a multi-level-marketing scam.

Po, in fairness, most atheists are pretty damn quiet about it, and often we do have a fair amount of knowledge about the religion we may be discussing - I'm an ex-catholic atheist, with a fair amount of theological study under my belt. I guess I came to believe in a moral code that was not dependent on, or crucial to, a supernatural being - that's not really "knowing all the answers", and I suspect closer to what most atheists think than those who are most vocal - pace Christians, really.

Of course Habbs - as I said, I'm an agnostic [though nobody seems to believe me here as I always seem to be defending Christianinty, when i fact I feel I am trying to clarify what it originally stood for it and for what many people still believe it to be. There are a few, highly vocal voices on MN who repeatedly make assumptions about Christianity [not so much other religions] and it irks me a bit. I do call myself a Christian agnostic as I believe passionately in Christ's teachings even though I have problems totally accepting the existence of God. I have had some excellent discussions on MN with atheists and agnostics who do accept and converse in the language of theology and philosophy.

well there's the small issue of jihad too, some attempt to convert people there

glad to see the debate moved on though

the atheists' creed in my book was rather more as po-faced explained, but she did it in a very measured and much better way.

Along the lines of ..I believe I am more capable of rational thought than a religious believer. I believe I am more intelligent than a religious believer. I believe that religion is a comfort blanket. I believe that religion is a crutch. I believe that religious believers are emotionally stunted. I believe that cruel religious believers malign all religious belief. I believe that I understand religious belief better than religious believers.

And so on and so forth, for ever and ever.

Grimma excuse my humourless moment. It hasn't really stopped as you can see though. But I should have got the joke. I'm going to have to borrow po-faced's name for this thread.

onebatmother and redworm are atheists and zepherinedrouhin is agnostic and have had some v good and enlightening discussions with them. [wankerish ones obviously]

lol mmrsceptic. Come and join me in po-faced corner.

Of course, Christians don't make assumptions about atheists... having just read that 'creed'

Darn, I was hoping for some nice statement of philosophical position I could sign up to but I fail in the first couple of sentences:
"I believe I am more capable of rational thought than a religious believer. I believe I am more intelligent than a religious believer." ... because I used to be a believer and I don't think my intelligence or capability for rational thought have altered since then.

Going back a bit, weegiemum I am in full agreement with you - I asked the question 'why a possible ex evangelical' as I am thinking along similar lines. I am reading some of McLarens stuff and I love Rob Bell - I think these guys have a lot to say prophetically to the church. The American right-wing evangelicalism has hijacked what evangelicalism is in the etymology of the word and the spirit of how it started. I too when I label myself 'evangelical' do so increasingly reluctantly because of the negative connotations of the word. However I'm still there in spirit, in the original meaning that is. I can't stand the bible-belt prosperity gospel we're allright thankyou complete shite that is peddled in the name of the word, the injustice and the intolerance make me so sad and so angry. I think I would probably term myself as a charismatic post-evangelical emergent. As for authority of scripture - I believe it's inspired by God, but every word cannot be literal, there is allegory, there is poetry, there is narrative and it is written by a motley selection of very human people. But it's still inspired, and still our guide.
Have you seen any of the Rob Bell 'Nooma' DVD's? Excellent stuff.

grimma how interesting

it was largely based on evidence on this thread, basically it would be nice if it had been otherwise

but as pofaced points out, not all are the same, so perhaps both sides ought to stop making assumptions

I was really, really trying to making a point because the assumptions and the sweeping language started against the Christian viewpoint

you're a flipper then