How can I help religious DD?

[IsabellaofFrance]

My DD is 6.

She has become increasingly more religious in the last year. She attends Rainbows and Sunday School (at her request) and she loves both.

I think she understands that beliefs are individual and that not everyone believes the things she does, and she is happy to share her own beliefs. She has started to get interested in Dinosaurs and Space, and became really upset when learning about the creation of the universe as it doesn't fit with what she believes.

DH is Atheist, I am Christian but only attend Church semi-regularly and I just don't know how to handle it. I can't answer the questions she has without upsetting her. She is bright and articulate so its not explaining it on a level that is the problem, its knowing what to say.

Al Pacino Yes, I was. It troubled me but there were many other revelations of God, both in the Bible and elsewhere, to set against it. I think that many Christians feel uneasy about aspects of God as depicted in the Old Testament. Wouldn't you, if you were a Christian?

Regarding there being no differences in the cases for the Bible and the Koran, I think that scholars of both religions would - for once - be in complete agreement that this is not true. I can see why superficially it would look identical though.

Lol Big. What I'm not prepared to do is trot out my best arguments to try to convince you. It would go on for hours, you would be as rude as you were to springy, and it would change nothing. If you were interested in genuinely engaging that would be different but I can only assume that you don't know enough to do more than spout a paragraph - I can't engage with a vague sweeping dismissal and the specifics simply aren't there. That's the truth. I'm not sure what's hypocritical about it.

wouldn't you

I did because I was. I think it was because others managed to ignore it/justify it even though I see from this side of the fence that the justifications are/were poor at best and abhorrent at worst.

Superficially it would look identical

It's not what is in the texts themselves but the mechanism the believers use to believe it without the use of the reasoning process that they use to assess reality in the other 99.99% of their real lives where there is actual demonstrable harm in not making sound assessments.

Poor OP didn't get a lot of help there, did she!?

because there isn't an answer?

this (very smart-sounding!) child has hit the disconnect between two incompatible theories. Yes, the science is a theory, albeit backed by lots of evidence - because it is only our current understanding and may change. Unlikely given overwhelming evidence, but science means an open mind.

I know what my path was (When a religious person screamed 'the dinosaurs are fakes' and that was the final end of any remaining belief) but she will have to find hers.

Good point special. I completely forgot about the OP. OP, if you're still reading, I would handle this situation by talking about fable, allegory, intelligent design and different levels of truth.

The creation 'story' can be understand as a way of explaining to the people of the time that God created the world. We now have the scientific understanding to understand that the story is a fable - i.e., most Christians believe that the deepest level of truth in the story is accurate (God created the world) but the way that this is described happening is probably not accurate. She might like to think of the different ways in which you have simplified explanations as she's been growing up into a story that she will be able to understand.

If it was my DD, I would also be encouraging her to consider that God tells us in the bible that he is everywhere, not just in the pages of a book but in every natural wonder - so she can look into space and science and biology to find out more about how the world has been put together. There are verses in the bible that reflects a more limited level of understanding of the natural world than we have today - because Christians believe that the bible is a collaboration between God and man and we understand far more today than the writers did then. However, there are also verses that suggest writers who were ahead of their time in their understanding and those need to be considered too. And if she believes in God and is troubled by any of this, I would suggest that she prays about it as well as talking to you and her Sunday school teacher.

Alan Yes I agree about that reasoning glitch but that doesn't actually make believing in the two texts into the same deal. Because the texts are different, even if the mechanism for faith is similar in each case. If you feel that's irrelevant, I would question the degree to which your own thinking reflects reality.

I'm aware we are talking about two different texts, the mechanism for ascribing belief in them is flawed for both, with both believers being utterly assured of a personal God who makes It's presence felt. Both convinced they have the one true religion, both maintain that their book is superior to all others.

I realise that. But the validity of the work is independent of what the believer has emotionally invested in it. So while the believer might believe one text as easily as another, from an objective standpoint they may not be equally valid. That still matters, even if it doesn't matter to a proportion of practising believers.

You are also overlooking the significant numbers of practising believers in both religions who actually do care about the validity of the text and who aren't simply using circular reasoning to justify their arguments.

What justifications did you find were abhorrent?

There are also significant numbers of scholars who do not see it as divinely inspired, for any text so study cannot be seen as a way of establishing a validity in itself otherwise all biblical scholars would believe it.

Slaughter of children ordered by God, the justifications are gut churning.

the bible makes some whacky claims about what it's followers will be able to do such as handling snakes and raising dead people, I've seen none of that. Christians struggle as much as non Christians. These grand promises of having a hot line to an all powerful deity make no discernible difference, a difference the NT seems to think would be obvious. When did you last raise a dead person? I'm guessing your faith amounts to a bit of praying and thinking about God and absolutely nothing that would draw gasps of shock from onlookers.

No, I agree it doesn't prove validity though it may well provide strong arguments in favour of it. There is no chance that every scholar would reach the same conclusions about a contemporary text let alone something so culturally (and in every other way) removed from us. My faith doesn't draw that kind of gasp from onlookers, no. Though it does result in a very different kind of life so your description still isn't accurate. The NT promises of signs and wonders were made to a particular people group at a specific moment in history. I do think there are instances of miracles but agree that these are rare. However, people living as Christ directed is also very rare so perhaps it's not surprising from one perspective (giving up everything they have to anyone who needs it, devoting their lives to showing love and sharing the news that reconciliation with God is a possibility). I certainly wouldn't hand out power to someone who wasn't going to use it as I'd intended. I think Christians are making a miserable failure of what they were charged to do and don't blame anyone who feels that they probably represent a god who is equally underwhelming.

Slaughter of children ordered by God. I don't know what justifications you've read. I don't feel like making any because I agree that it is repugnant to have anything to do with the death of a child. Because this is a public forum and I don't know who else may read this thread, I feel I have to put forward the other arguments that I'm aware of: Jewish prophecies were made against a nation who were 'corrupt'; child sacrifice was one way in which this was manifested. When the prophecies warning of condemnation had been ignored over a period of years, God ordered that the nation be wiped out. I wish that the god of the Jews made arrangements for the care of those in that nation who were innocent, but he didn't. The god of the Old Testament seems to have issued warning after warning and then obliterated a nation. I've already said I'm uneasy about it. Taken as a whole book, it's clear that the god of the OT was passionately committed to stamping out oppression, even if it meant stamping out an oppressive nation.

made to a particular group

It doesn't state that. You believe that because you are working backwards to justify why it's not happening. Do you believe the promise of eternal life is only for a certain group? No. Because there's no need to explain away why it's not happening.

there is no chance that every scholar...

Even the ones who confess to be Christians come to contradictory conclusions on issues such as LGBT and women leadership. You would think an all powerful deity would be better at communicating.

a very different kind of life

Examples? How is your life very different to mine?

passionately committed to stamping out oppression

So is Amnesty International but I don't think genocide is one of their methods. Why are you uneasy about God ordering people to stab babies? What is it about God telling people to stab babies that makes you feel uneasy? Would you stab babies if God told you to? Are you kinder than God?

corrupt.....child sacrifice...

Didn't God once order Abraham to sacrifice his child? But the same God is also very anti child sacrifice? I'm confused.

I wish the God of the Jews made arrangements

It's a strange thing to be morally superior to the God you believe in.

devoting their lives to showing love

And selling their coat to buy a sword

Al Thinking about it and looking at the progression from outward behaviour in the OT to the inner heart-attitudes and mindset emphasised in the NT, I can understand why an all-powerful, living deity was more interested in sharing his outlook than his rule book. Christ doesn't seem to care if his provocative rhetoric and refusal to be pinned down to formulas invites scorn from his opponents. There are many timeless principles in the NT that we can be in no doubt are intended for every time and culture - but also many outward trappings of early Christianity that today's Christians believe applied to that time. Otherwise we would be living in a similar manner to the Amish. There is flexibility in the NT because it isn't afraid to engage with life's complexities, though there are also specific instructions in specific places to specific people - e.g., there are instructions about how the early church was to be structured. Does this mean that church is always to be structured like this? Probably not. Does this mean that none of the early church's beliefs and governing principles are valid? Probably not. Why isn't this spelled out? Probably because Christ was interested in his follower's ongoing commitment to devotion, loving others and staying true to the indwelling of the holy spirit, rather than exactly what they did. We are given enough information about what to do to recognise if our lives are defined by love and integrity, but not enough to trap us into slavish ritualistic living. However the news about how Christ's death and resurrection alters the relationship between God and man is clearly intended for all people and Christians were required to share that message with all people.

Yes, when Christ sent out followers into a region notorious for robbers he wished them to have a sword. There is genuine reason to believe that this word may be a later insertion; make of that what you will.

Re: Abraham and child sacrifice. God asked this of Abraham but did not have him to do it. Instead, God did it himself. He is very anti-child sacrifice; his one sacrifice was an atonement for all. This passage in the OT sets up the overarching theme of the NT; God requires absolute devotion from his followers but does so within a context of the highest price already having been paid by Christ.

I'm not claiming to be morally superior to God; I'm describing what I personally would like to have happened. What do I find offensive about killing a nation? The part where a nation was killed. Do I prefer amnesty's methods? Yes. Though they're not terribly effective at crushing oppressive regimes, which is what God was aiming for. I'm taking the events described in the OT in context with what I know about the bible as a whole and I'm prepared to accept it. I also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this would not be required of Christians today because the themes of the NT are overwhelmingly about sacrificial love and martyrdom.

How is my life different from yours? Don't know obviously and I can't say what's different because it is unusual and too identifying. You can doubt this if you want but if I was lying, surely I'd have been more likely to have made something up about living in the slums of Calcutta .

Surely you can think of one important non-identifying thing you do that I probably don't that you do because of your faith and that non believers don't do and that stands out as different.

early church's beliefs

But you believe the God of the OT is the God of the NT. And there was a time when he saw fit to order the brutal murder of babies. If you found out your best friend stabbed a load of babies last week you would hardly dismiss it saying something like 'well I don't understand exactly why they did it but I'm sure they had a good reason, and besides they give money to charity do they're obviously nice'.