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.

a later insertion

And an all powerful God wasn't able to keep it out? If you believe that God was unable to keep out entirely human thoughts from the bible then you have no reliable way of saying what is from God and what isn't. You'll use your 21st century morals to decide which we know are very different to the morals of someone from 100 or a thousand years ago and so on. The slave issue being a prime example.

he is very anti child sacrifice

People who are opposed to a certain practice do not order people to do it. That's utter nonsense.

And it's cruel to order people to do sacrifice their children as some sort of example of obedience. It's despicable behaviour.

Why do you prefer Amnesty's methods over gods?

Can I just ask why you make so many separate posts? Not a dig, just curious.

Interesting point about the insertion. Possible insertions aren't evaluated on how closely they fit with what we'd like to believe about God. It's down to issues like what versions the word crops up in, whether it's consistent with what we know about the writer's culture and use of language, whether it's the sort of thing that other parties would like to see in the text, whether it sticks out of the text in terms of theme. You could look at any old text in the same way. There are parts of the bible that clearly reflect the preoccupations of the people who compiled it. For instance, at one point they were compiling material in such a way that everyone would become aware that bad things happen to bad people and vice verca.

For a person of faith who is willing to look unflinchingly at the bible as a historical document, it's immediately necessary to acknowledge that it is at least partially man-made; a collaboration. If you are trying to prove the existence of God in this way or even know everything about God through this one book, it's problematic. There is not, as far as I'm aware, anything that would 'scientifically' prove the bible is the infallible word of God, although it does come across as a special text that can bear any amount of analysis. At the very least, its coming into being is a mysterious and rather miraculous thing that makes a compelling argument for the existence of God.

I disagree with the premise of the 'how are you different to me' question. Christians are instructed to live their lives completely differently - sacrificially and with love for the most vulnerable people in the world. For someone to turn aside from life as its usually lived is 'one thing' but such a huge thing that it's completely identifying, whether you have a faith or not.

Re the sacrifice of Isaac, this is not the only time in the bible when individuals seem to have a very unpleasant experience in order for a deeper point to be made. Take Hosea, who was told to marry a prostitute in order to depict God's forgiveness and commitment to a people who repeatedly turned away from their faith to other gods. It may be unpalatable but I don't see what that really has to do with the existence of God - he's not more likely to be real because we approve of him. There are many points of similarity between God in the old and new testaments. His hatred of sin doesn't change, nor does his emphasis on the creation of a society that is free from injustice. He is endlessly interested in forgiveness and compassion in both books, but not at the cost of tolerating suffering. However, in the old testament, he will wipe out a nation rather than tolerate a society that sexually and financially abused its most vulnerable citizens. In the new testament, the loathing of injustice is still there but the means of dealing with it are different.

The question about amnesty I will admit is slightly irritating because I've already said I dislike a nation being killed and obviously it is the fact that amnesty doesn't do this that I prefer. While it is absolutely true that the OT God and amnesty couldn't be more different for those instances, there are many other parts of the bible that dovetail with Amnesty's driving principles. I prefer the way Amnesty works in the way that I prefer pacifism over bombing a city.

I'm on my phone. I find it harder to do one huge post

you could look at any old text the same way

But you believe an all powerful God had something to do with the formation of the text which makes it very very different, or at least it should. But it doesn't, does it, because like all the other old texts it is just an old text filled with humans thoughts.

a compelling argument for the existence of god

How? Do you also believe in the deities of the other religious texts?

We live in a UK where people can believe what they choose but also where atheists are allowed to say there is no God and seek to convince people of that. Just as we allow preaching by religions even door to door or in the street. Now that is fine as long as the bottom line is Je Suis Charlie etc and atheists are free to produce Jesus and Mo T shirts and have freedom of speech. We have fought long and hard in the UK to allow atheists to express their views.

Some religious people are happy to enter into debate with the 50%+ of people in the UK who don't believe in God and others choose not to.

Unless she goes to a C of E school I would be surprised a 6 year old would know what Sunday school is to ask to go to it however. Why did she not equally ask to go to a Muslim religious class?

wether you have faith or not

And that's the crux, in any given society some are more emphatic than others and this spread of personality crosses all faiths and beliefs. There is no one behaviour that is particular to Christianity. Someone who has a heart for the most vulnerable is no more likely to be a particular religion or even no religion. Like me you are probably deeply upset by the suffering of other humans that moves you to do things. Like me you care for your family and pay bills. Can you think of one thing you do out of love for humans that I probably don't because I am not a Christian?

because we approve of him

But God expected you to use your sense of right and wrong to decide to become a Christian. But then it appears you're suggesting he requires you to suspend that sense of morality at certain points when reading the bible? It sounds quite dangerous that you are willing to stop assessing the mortality of his actions. For example you say God hates oppression of the vulnerable so much that he saw fit to order the Israelites to stab those vulnerable and oppressed children? And that seems logical? You see even a flawed human would be questioned if they claimed to be loving but stabbed children. A God who claims to be loving yet orders children to be stabbed should be under more scrutiny, not less!

will not tolerate a society that sexually and financially abused

It was standard practice for the Israelites to kill the men and wives but take virgin females for their own wives. Can you imagine watching a man stab your family and then take you to be married off to either him, if he fancied you, or married off to one of his comrades? Is that the way to treat vulnerable people?

I prefer pacifism

Why? What's wrong with bombing cities and stabbing babies?

An unpleasant experience in order for a deeper point to be made

Unpleasant!?! God ordering someone to kill his child, when the same God gets angry about child sacrifice. As a parent could you imagining orchestrating such a horrific scenario to make a point? I might not remind my dad to take her umbrella for the 1000th time so that if they get caught in a down pour they are more likely to not need to be reminded to take one. But demanding that she sacrifices her little brother only to intervene just before she plunged the carving knife into into his tiny rib cage. And then say, 'hey, I just wanted to illustrate how important obedience is'. That sort of behaviour is going to get your kids royally screwed up and taken into care and you probably being sectioned.

I think the interesting thing is that Sunday school etc.. Obviously only teach the lovel fluffy bits about god and jesus and avoid any of the "difficult" bits, at a similar age ds was taught about god in school, he then saw some news items about starving children in Africa and wanted to know why god didn't look after them or feed them ? I have never told him not to believe but let him think through the hard stuff and encourage him to question everything he is taught !

Al This will only answer part of your point about the virgins of other tribes being protected from slaughter. It seems very likely that girls were very young when they became technically given to a man in marriage. Girls who were considered virgins (shown through jewelry) were only five. These girls were to be brought up as Jewish within the tribe. The word 'for yourselves' in context doesn't mean 'for your pleasure'. It stands in opposition to the word 'for God'. The term 'for God' in this passage has meant 'vanquish' so 'for the Jewish nation' simply means 'take home with you'. There was an elaborate quarantine and cleansing process (as there was for the warriors) before these children were taken into the territory of the Jewish tribe so it seems most unlikely that they were being told to rape them. There is simply no indication of it and no practice of paedophilia in the Jewish tradition - unlike the majority of other cultures in the tribes surrounding them. But I agree with you that these children (and Isaac) were exposed to brutality.

I prefer pacifism because, likely many others, I don't like people being killed. However, I cannot truthfully say that I'm sorry that the Nazis were defeated in World War Two, or that the measures that were taken were wrong, or that Hiroshima was categorically wrong. It's not always possible to only kill soldiers, now or then.

Snow Interesting point. I agree that it's difficult to reconcile the idea of a loving God with the suffering in the world. Personally, I believe that the suffering deeply grieves God and was never part of his intention. This is a broken world and we are told to expect this to be played out on a global stage before 'all things are made new'.

I disagree Big. Completely. From what you've said, I think your reading has been unbalanced at best, and you are coming at this 'Harry Potter' disbelieving in wizards every bit as much as I'm coming at it from a standpoint of belief. You also gravely under-estimate the serious, unbiased work that many theologians and religious historians are capable of. Every scientist and academic has a position and it is only by reading work from all standpoints that you can get an idea of where you want to stand. Unless you know where you want to stand before you start. You seem determined to believe that 'knowing where you want to stand before you start' is the only way anyone could be genuinely persuaded that Christianity is real. Fair enough, you're entitled to your viewpoint. But I wish you were able to make it with less bitterness and bitchiness. Anyway, there is another long-running thread about the existence of God with a lot more traffic so I'll leave it there.