Help me understand my Christian daughter

[elliott95]

...

 

[aiki]

Blind post. Sorry.

So I've come here to get some of my questions answered and gain some understanding of her beliefs.

Then I'll throw out a few questions:
What is the appeal of Christian faith? By this I mean, what is she getting out of it that she couldn't just get from a loving family and friends?

She's obtaining fellowship with her Creator. She can't get that in relating with anyone else.

How do Christians find a way to make science and religion compatible? To me, any belief in the supernatural defies the basic foundation of science, I don't get how you can make them computable.

Your comments here reflect your presupposition: the supernatural cannot exist. Christians do science with the opposite presupposition: God/the supernatural exists. Both Christians and non-Christians do science quite well, but how they interpret what science reveals is where they diverge from one another. Christians don't employ the scientific method any differently from atheists. It's just that, for a Christian, the results are made to conform to a different set of presuppositions than those of the atheist.

Science in the modern sense got its start in large part because of Christians who believed the universe was the expression of a rational, knowable Creator. THey believed that, since God was rational, the universe He created was also rational and could, therefore, be investigated and studied rationally.

I see a lot of talk about how "Jesus loves us" and "God gave his only son to save us from our sins", but I don't really understand what this means. Sure, it's nice to be loved and I feel gratitude for someone making a sacrifice for me, but why is that love more special than love from family and friends?

Because it is a love that saves and transforms. Because it is a love that comes from the Maker of Everything. Because it is a love that is uniquely designed to fulfill us.

The Bible tells us that God is perfectly holy and we are not. We are separated from God by our sin. If we are not reconciled to God, we will one day find ourselves eternally separated from Him. Unfortunately, we cannot bridge the gap between God and ourselves. We are too weak, too imperfect. God, however, desires our reconciliation to Himself and made a way for us, through Jesus' death on the cross, to obtain that reconciliation. God didn't have to do this, but because He is loving God, He went to great and terrible lengths to bring us into harmony with Himself.

How can someone else sacrifice themself for my sins? That just doesn't make sense, aren't I responsible for myself? It just don't understand why that's such a big deal.

You are responsible for your sins. But you cannot do anything on your own about the consequences of your sin. You cannot pay enough for them; you cannot ever expunge them. So, God did for you what you cannot do for yourself. His holy perfection allowed Him to fulfill the demands of His own moral law for a sin-atonement completely, not just for you but for all the world! As a result, you do not have to die and spend eternity forever separated from your Maker. I think that's a pretty big deal!

Selah.

 

[dhh712]

Blind post. Sorry.

No--I think this a good thing! Time to get this thread back on it's original track!

You are responsible for your sins. But you cannot do anything on your own about the consequences of your sin. You cannot pay enough for them; you cannot ever expunge them. So, God did for you what you cannot do for yourself. His holy perfection allowed Him to fulfill the demands of His own moral law for a sin-atonement completely, not just for you but for all the world! As a result, you do not have to die and spend eternity forever separated from your Maker. I think that's a pretty big deal!

Wonderful summary! Can't agree more!

 

[oi_antz]

Oi-antz, when talking about miracles, writes: "But, if technology is capable of turning water to wine one day, then can't you assume that God has the ability to do that too? All I am saying is that your experience (or lack thereof) does not nullify someone else's experience."

This is exactly what I mean when I say a belief in God would mean radically changing how I understand reality. Water cannot turn into wine without magic. Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, those atoms cannot just change their form to become the atoms that form alcohol molecules and the other substances that make up wine. Water can only change into something that is made up of only hydrogen and oxygen. What you're saying is that God has the ability to tear apart atoms into subatomic particles and rearrange them into the exact atoms and molecules to make wine. That's just too far removed from reality to be believable. Especially when it makes perfect sense that the water-into-wine story is just that, a story, a myth, meant to be a metaphor to show the greatness of Christ.

Hi CaryW, thanks for addressing me. I didn't suggest that it wasn't magic, or that technology isn't magic either. I don't know why you think technology may never be capable of changing atomic compositions, what makes you so sure it is not a realistic possibility? Furthermore, your belief that God didn't create the atoms in the first place actually prevents your ability to consider that His technology is capable of doing it.

Anyhow, that is interesting but not nearly as interesting as your other comment. I am really interested to know why you would say that the story of Jesus and water to wine is a myth. What makes you believe that? It doesn't seem to be written in a non-literal fashion when I read it. Are you suggesting that I am reading it wrong, that the author was wrong, or something else? Please appreciate that this is not an attempt to tell you how wrong I think you are, but I see an opportunity for you to show me a point of view I don't yet understand. Once I understand it then I will be able to decide if I think you are wrong or not.

What about my other comments in that reply, do you think it would help to pick your daughter's brain?

 

[mandyangel]

Thank you all who have responded, I wish I could say it has helped, but the truth is I just feel like I'm at a total road block to understanding what you mean. I just can't get over the hump of believing in something that has no evidence and cannot be observed and tested. Eternal life and supreme beings just don't fit into everything I understand about reality.

I think Talitha hit on exactly why I feel so frustrated when she said this: "When we find the love of God, it's like everything finally comes together and makes sense."

I have never felt this, I can't even comprehend what this might feel like, and I can't see any kind of logical path that lead me to feel that way. I have read and tried to understand part of the bible, but what I see in the bible is stories. Stories like the birdcage story. Certainly these stories are important and can help us lead better, more fulfilling lives, but they are still stories, just because a story says I can have everlasting life doesn't mean it can really happen.

If you believe in science, then I guess you would believe in the idea that we have to be open and tolerant to everything because anything is possible and we should open our hearts and minds to whatever is possible.

 

[oi_antz]

Anyone else find it kind of weird that this guy has some sort of inner conflict over his daughter's religious beliefs when he has no strong beliefs himself? I never could understand atheists that had to worry over other people being religious.

Unless you see objectionable attitudes that a religious belief creates in a person, you will not be able to understand why a non-religious might object to it. If religion was limited to "I believe Jesus is my saviour and that He will take me to heaven" then there's probably nothing reasonable to object to. But if it makes a person start regarding others differently or doing things that aren't good, then there is something to be concerned about. I'm sure you have seen this effect, I know I have and I suspect CaryW's fear is probably for that reason.

 

[DarylFawcett]

MOD HAT ON!!!!!

A major thread clean up was done in relation to directly replying to deleted posts, therefore, if your post is missing, you will understand why it is missing.

This is also a reminder that in accordance to the SoP in this area of CF, only the OP, namely CaryW and Christians can post in this thread.

MOD HAT OFF!!!!!

 

[elliott95]

....

 

[oi_antz]

The arrogance lies in the inability to not respect the daughter's faith in God as rational, intelligent and a perfectly reasonable, even if the price to pay is a continuing relationship with that daugher in the fullness of love that had existed from the beginning.

That as an observation, by itself doesn't help anyone. It would be useful however for CaryW to know why this is, because it might not be fair, and if so then it will probably harm the way her daughter regards her.

 

[elliott95]

...

 

[CaryW]

Good to see you back, Cary



Well, if God created the atoms out of subatomic particles in the first place, created the rules by which they operate, and so on ... why couldn't He in fact?

Not trying to give you a hard time or mock you, but ... if He IS the Creator, then He did just that, so it would follow that it COULD be reasonable.

Look at how much "reality" has changed in the past 200 years? What we've learned? Those things have always been true, we just didn't understand them before. Who is to say that in another 200 years, we couldn't easily rearrange sub-atomic particles to create different elements and recombine them?

How far fetched is that, compared to the way in which our current knowledge and abilities would appear to people 200 years ago?

I daresay they would see much of our science as "magic" or "miracles".

You definitely make a valid point. There is no way to prove that God does not exist or that things that seem like miracles or magic don't have some other logical explanation. There is no way to prove that technology will never be able to do something. At some point we all have to have faith that we seeing the world as it really is.

The problem I have is that if I start with the assumption that God exists, I end up making more and more wild and outlandish claims to make it all "fit", while the obvious truth is just staring me in the face. At some point it just doesn't work anymore. I can't prove it, but I know in my heart that there is no God, the stories in the Bible are just that, stories. There is no afterlife, just this one fragile life we are living right now. And while Jesus may have been a real man, he was just that, a man, who lived and died just like the rest of us will.

When my daughter became a Christian, I felt like a rift opened up between us, and I'm still searching for a way to close it up again, but the more I explore Christian beliefs, the more it becomes clear to me that it's not the answer for me. I can't prove that I'm seeing the world as it really is, but I also can't give up my view of what that reality is.

 

[CaryW]

Spirit and Truth - beautiful story about the birdcage.

Stating the feeling that I would have if my family did not believe. If you do not believe you will never know the feeling of desperation of knowing that your loved ones may be lost for eternity. They pull away because it hurts so much.

As a Christian we are promised eternity with Jesus and knowing that our loved ones would miss out on this would be more than I could endure and pulling away is their way of dealing with the hurt.

All you can do is love her because she will never give up on praying for you to become a part of her life that she holds very precious.

Having the love of God in your heart gives you the longing for others to share in this faith. The Bible even tells us to bring the love of God to others and if they don't listen to dust off your shoes and move on (I'm paraphrasing) - This is to not let the temptation of unbelievers beliefs rub off on a believer and is God's protection for us.

Just love her and know that her pulling away is desperation and fear - she has a secure future for eternity with Jesus and knows unless you change your faith that you will not be part of it. This is just normal actions to protect the heart from being broken.

This is what pains me, is thinking that she may be feeling this. I don't want her to feel sadness over us not being together for eternity because I don't believe it's possible to live for eternity anyway. I want her to be close to her family and be happy now, and enjoy the moment because life is short and we never know how much time we will have to live.

 

[CaryW]

How exactly do you know all that? Or for that matter, any of that? IIRC, the article said there was only one religion lesson per week, which is a pretty thin gruel. (When I attended RC grade school, we had religion every day, top of the morning, so things have obviously changed). The author was explicit when he described the clarity of the position his daughter took.

You may be correct, it certainly is possible, but I don't see what basis you have for your opinion. Would you not think that these intelligent, very committed atheist parents would have probed the angle of peer pressure, to prevent their daughter from making a mistake for emotional reasons? Have you thought this through non-prejudicially? If not, perhaps you need to examine your own motivations toward the subject. You may find the answer to how to better relate to your daughter there.

I work at a school, we deal with bullying and peer pressure every day, so it surprised me that the authors of that article didn't seem to even consider the possibility that their daughter was feeling pressure to fit in with her classmates and teachers. I also think one religion lesson per week is a lot more than "thin gruel", it's essentially the same as going to church every Sunday. If you send your child to church every Sunday, then what would you expect? You would expect them follow the beliefs of the church you are sending her to. It just seemed foolish of these parents to essentially send their daughter to church every week and not expect her to become religious.

 

[CaryW]

Christians don't employ the scientific method any differently from atheists. It's just that, for a Christian, the results are made to conform to a different set of presuppositions than those of the atheist.

Selah.

I think you're onto something here. When I start with the presupposition that God exists, the results have to be forced into supporting the fact that God exists, rather that just be taken for what the results are. It's this "forcing" that makes science and religion incompatible to me. When we do science, we do experiments and make observations and then try to make sense of it all, but when we start with the assumption that God exists, then the results have to be consistent with god existing, whether the results actually show that or not. I would have a much easier time believing in God if the results of scientific experiments indicated the existence of God from the results only, without starting with the assumption that God exists.

 

[CaryW]

Hi CaryW, thanks for addressing me. I didn't suggest that it wasn't magic, or that technology isn't magic either. I don't know why you think technology may never be capable of changing atomic compositions, what makes you so sure it is not a realistic possibility? Furthermore, your belief that God didn't create the atoms in the first place actually prevents your ability to consider that His technology is capable of doing it.

Anyhow, that is interesting but not nearly as interesting as your other comment. I am really interested to know why you would say that the story of Jesus and water to wine is a myth. What makes you believe that? It doesn't seem to be written in a non-literal fashion when I read it. Are you suggesting that I am reading it wrong, that the author was wrong, or something else? Please appreciate that this is not an attempt to tell you how wrong I think you are, but I see an opportunity for you to show me a point of view I don't yet understand. Once I understand it then I will be able to decide if I think you are wrong or not.

What about my other comments in that reply, do you think it would help to pick your daughter's brain?

I certainly don't think you are wrong, and I don't think you are calling me wrong either. You bring up an interesting point that if would love to answer, but it's too late to do it tonight, so I will try to get back to this tomorrow.


Sorry to have disappeared for so long, life, work, family and a chance to go skiing over MLK weekend all got in the way of my internet access!

 

[aiki]

I think you're onto something here. When I start with the presupposition that God exists, the results have to be forced into supporting the fact that God exists, rather that just be taken for what the results are. It's this "forcing" that makes science and religion incompatible to me. When we do science, we do experiments and make observations and then try to make sense of it all, but when we start with the assumption that God exists, then the results have to be consistent with god existing, whether the results actually show that or not. I would have a much easier time believing in God if the results of scientific experiments indicated the existence of God from the results only, without starting with the assumption that God exists.

Well, I think you may have somewhat misunderstood me. What I was trying to point out was that Christian and non-Christian scientists both have starting presuppositions from which they interpret scientific data. The Christian believes God exists and the atheist believes God does not exist. Both of them interpret what the scientific method uncovers so that it supports their presupposition. THere was an interesting documentary that came out a couple of years ago called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." It detailed the powerful bias atheist scientists have toward any interpretation of scientific data that did not conform to their naturalistic presuppositions. The ferocious and blatant bias among atheist scientists in favor of their naturalistic philosophy was astonishing! It isn't just that Christians look for evidence from science to support their beliefs; atheists do the very same thing. Who you think is more justified in doing so depends upon your own presuppositions.

Selah.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You definitely make a valid point. There is no way to prove that God does not exist or that things that seem like miracles or magic don't have some other logical explanation. There is no way to prove that technology will never be able to do something. At some point we all have to have faith that we seeing the world as it really is.

The problem I have is that if I start with the assumption that God exists, I end up making more and more wild and outlandish claims to make it all "fit", while the obvious truth is just staring me in the face. At some point it just doesn't work anymore. I can't prove it, but I know in my heart that there is no God, the stories in the Bible are just that, stories. There is no afterlife, just this one fragile life we are living right now. And while Jesus may have been a real man, he was just that, a man, who lived and died just like the rest of us will.

When my daughter became a Christian, I felt like a rift opened up between us, and I'm still searching for a way to close it up again, but the more I explore Christian beliefs, the more it becomes clear to me that it's not the answer for me. I can't prove that I'm seeing the world as it really is, but I also can't give up my view of what that reality is.

All I can say is that, in a way, I understand where you are. My background was in science - specifically biology/zoology, so I was heavily invested in evolution. If evolution wasn't true, then my whole education and everything I believed - was a lie. No one wants to believe that. My point is not that everything you believe is a lie, rather my point is that I was very invested in NOT finding anything wrong with evolution.

I guess it's hard to converse, speaking in general terms. I'm not sure exactly what it is you see as the great obstacle. There are those Christians (many of them in fact) who have no trouble reconciling the Bible and evolution. Actually, I would guess that MOST Christians believe in evolution. It's not a requirement to disbelieve evolution in order to believe in God, although one must work to interpret the Bible according to that framework. However, neither foundation automatically means that one cannot believe in God.

So I don't argue that anyone must discard any scientific ideas. It's just the way that I personally happened to become open to the truth. But not necessary for anyone else. We're all different.

 

[oi_antz]

I certainly don't think you are wrong, and I don't think you are calling me wrong either. You bring up an interesting point that if would love to answer, but it's too late to do it tonight, so I will try to get back to this tomorrow.


Sorry to have disappeared for so long, life, work, family and a chance to go skiing over MLK weekend all got in the way of my internet access!

Thanks, I look forward to knowing your thoughts on these things. Also, you have mentioned a couple of times that when you start to consider the world around you with the assumption that God exists, it doesn't "fit". I'm curious to know more about what this means, would you mind elaborating a bit?

 

[CaryW]

Hi CaryW, thanks for addressing me. I didn't suggest that it wasn't magic, or that technology isn't magic either. I don't know why you think technology may never be capable of changing atomic compositions, what makes you so sure it is not a realistic possibility? Furthermore, your belief that God didn't create the atoms in the first place actually prevents your ability to consider that His technology is capable of doing it.

Anyhow, that is interesting but not nearly as interesting as your other comment. I am really interested to know why you would say that the story of Jesus and water to wine is a myth. What makes you believe that? It doesn't seem to be written in a non-literal fashion when I read it. Are you suggesting that I am reading it wrong, that the author was wrong, or something else? Please appreciate that this is not an attempt to tell you how wrong I think you are, but I see an opportunity for you to show me a point of view I don't yet understand. Once I understand it then I will be able to decide if I think you are wrong or not.

What about my other comments in that reply, do you think it would help to pick your daughter's brain?

Myths are incredibly powerful, just because something is not literally true, does not mean that it is worthless. Consider the state of the world during the time the bible was written, for the most part it was a pre-literate society, so how were knowledge and information passed from one person to the next? The answer is, through stories, and to make those stories have more of an impression on us and to make the lessons more memorable, things are exaggerated and made fancier. Every culture has it's folk tales, and while they may be written as if they are factual, they all contain things that sound like magic, or talking animals, or something that is inconsistent with what we know of the physical world.

When I read stories in the bible, I can't help noticing how similar they are to the myths of other cultures. So when I read that Jesus turned water into wine, rather than trying to somehow convince myself that God can transform one element into another, the logical explanation is that this is an exaggeration, or a bit of fiction added to the story to make a certain point or to explain a lesson we are supposed to learn from the story.

So I guess I am suggesting that you are reading it wrong if you are taking everything in the bible as literal truth. Certainly you don't take everything in the bible as literal truth, do you?

As to whether I think it would help me understand my daughter to pick her brain and have these discussions with her, I have to say that I'm just not sure how to find the right time to do that. She is a college student in a neighboring state, a full days drive from where I live, so our time together is very limited right now. I don't want to risk wasting that time on arguing or unintentionally offending her. For one thing, I want her first priority to be completing her education, so I don't want to distract her from that. We had just over a week together at Christmas and it was all too quickly filled with sharing what we've all been doing lately, wedding plans and just enjoying some time together.

 

[oi_antz]

Myths are incredibly powerful, just because something is not literally true, does not mean that it is worthless. Consider the state of the world during the time the bible was written, for the most part it was a pre-literate society, so how were knowledge and information passed from one person to the next? The answer is, through stories, and to make those stories have more of an impression on us and to make the lessons more memorable, things are exaggerated and made fancier. Every culture has it's folk tales, and while they may be written as if they are factual, they all contain things that sound like magic, or talking animals, or something that is inconsistent with what we know of the physical world.

Thanks for explaining this, I understand better the way you see it. I don't think it is correct to suggest that the New Testament gospels are myth though, as they were written within the lifetime of the original witnesses and not just recordings of stories that had passed through generations. These records are in fact testimonies rather than myth. You may go on to say that some things had still been exaggerated, in which case you are saying that the people who penned these testimonies were representing deliberate untruths. These people were not illiterate and it doesn't make sense that Jesus' disciples who had witnessed His life would exaggerate their stories of Him. I think the matter of "truth" was far too important to Jesus to expect that those following His discipline would so easily transgress Him for the sake of His legacy. I would be interested to hear more of your ideas about that.

When I read stories in the bible, I can't help noticing how similar they are to the myths of other cultures. So when I read that Jesus turned water into wine, rather than trying to somehow convince myself that God can transform one element into another, the logical explanation is that this is an exaggeration, or a bit of fiction added to the story to make a certain point or to explain a lesson we are supposed to learn from the story.

It doesn't read like that though, it is written in a very manner-of-fact fashion. I don't see any reason to believe that the author intended for it to not be read seriously, do you? Keep in mind, I am not really interested in whether you are right to read it like that, I am more interested to know if I am right to read it the way I do. The reason for this attitude is because my faith is a process of seeking truth, and it is not so much a process of forcing my idea of truth on others. I do often share my criticisms however, if I see someone failing to acknowledge the truth, but it is not really within my control to convince someone else what they ought to believe, and it is often not right to.

So I guess I am suggesting that you are reading it wrong if you are taking everything in the bible as literal truth. Certainly you don't take everything in the bible as literal truth, do you?

No I don't, and the reason I don't is because some things aren't meant literally. For instance, in Matthew 25, Jesus describes that when He returns from heaven He will gather all the people and separate them as a shepherd separates the goats from the sheep. I don't read this to mean that we will all be wooly with four legs. Likewise in other statements, He describes His people as sheep while He is the shepherd. I don't think He means to say that He sees us as being wooly with four legs, but rather this is meant to be figurative language, which is often a sufficiently effective form of communication.

So, I tend to think that every statement should be read according to the intended context, and then tested for authenticity. For instance, the book of Genesis makes statements regarding the origins of existence and history, that does not seem to have any basis on historical records other than word-of-mouth myth. Therefore, I read the statements in Genesis as they are intended (often literally), though I regard them with sufficient doubt to accept that they may have been exaggerated or even created. There is the possiblity that the story of creation originated with Adam and Eve, but there is no historical record of Adam and Eve's account of creation, it seems to have been carried through generations and cultures before being recorded in the bible.

Then there is biblical prophecy, which is all illustrious. There are some things that can clearly be read literally, such as a mark on the right hand or forehead, but there are things that can't be read literally such as a dragon sweeping 1/3 of the stars from the sky to the earth. Statements like that can really only stimulate the imagination.

Anyhow, while there is often an obvious intended context, there is also the ability to compare a statement to a current event or person, and draw conclusions from patterns. This is also quite a useful way to gain insight and understanding from a holy text, or any text that the reader happens to be giving sufficient worship.

As to whether I think it would help me understand my daughter to pick her brain and have these discussions with her, I have to say that I'm just not sure how to find the right time to do that. She is a college student in a neighboring state, a full days drive from where I live, so our time together is very limited right now. I don't want to risk wasting that time on arguing or unintentionally offending her. For one thing, I want her first priority to be completing her education, so I don't want to distract her from that. We had just over a week together at Christmas and it was all too quickly filled with sharing what we've all been doing lately, wedding plans and just enjoying some time together.

Sure, well even if you don't get time to talk directly about it, you would be aware of certain attitudes between you regarding the contradicting beliefs you each have. I was really just saying that instead of putting up a wall against something you are sure she has wrong, it would probably foster a warmer relationship if you were to accept her difference and seek to understand it, which will cause her to trust you more and one day give you a better opportunity to express your own beliefs.

I notice you didn't answer my other question, I really would like to know why when you think with the assumption that God does exist, it doesn't "fit" with your observations or understandings of the world around you. It has been interesting to speak with you even just this little bit, and I do appreciate that you are patient and open minded enough to share your perspective. I am sure there is plenty I can learn by knowing more of your understanding.