-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
J
Relative interpretation of the bible? Let me see if I understand you correctly. In God's ten commandments it is written that we shall not murder. By your standard of relative interpretation; you then, might interpret this passage differently even though its meaning is given at face value? Correct me if I'm wrong and I think it's good if you could present an example for me.
C
Biology as a subject cannot even function without evolution, its the only answer science has come up with for the infinite amount of gradual change we have observed in animals and plants over the existence of earth. Natural selection is a part of evolution and it is a scientific FACT.
Saying that there is "NO evidence for evolution" is a display of utter ignorance and just shows your intolerance of anything that disproves scripture.
Also that pathetic attempt to disprove evolution by making a comparison between MAN MADE objects such as cars and bicycles was truly laughable.
Seriously guys, evolution does not conflict with the idea of a God or a creator, so stop being so hostile against something so concrete.
Saying that there is "NO evidence for evolution" is a display of utter ignorance and just shows your intolerance of anything that disproves scripture.
Also that pathetic attempt to disprove evolution by making a comparison between MAN MADE objects such as cars and bicycles was truly laughable.
Seriously guys, evolution does not conflict with the idea of a God or a creator, so stop being so hostile against something so concrete.
C
How so? Do you think that there was no field of biology prior to …. When? When did the theory of evolution give birth to the field of biology? After all, it's not as though we have had the same "evidence" or evolutionary explanations of phenomena.
The theory of evolution hasn't been a constant. So at which point do you think the theory of evolution became robust enough that it allowed for the discipline of biology to be practiced?
You are still having the same difficulty that you had in our last discussion: you can't seem to make your argument without assuming what you should be proving.
You say that only evolution can explain the gradual changes observed in plants and animals over the existence of the earth. Now, this could mean one of two things.
First, it could mean species adaptation. What you are saying is that we need "macroevolution" (or the theory of common descent via natural selection) to explain adaptation. But this seems obviously false. We don't need the theory of evolution (which refers to macro-evolution, common descent, natural selection etc) in order to explain species adaptation. If you think we do need "macroevolution" to explain adaptation then please give us some argument rather than your dogmatic assertions.
Creationists believe that species can vary and adapt. An obvious example would be dogs or even the Galapagos tortoises you tried to pawn off as a proof of evolution earlier. So to assert that evolution is the only explanation of variation and adaptation is question begging (assuming what needs to be proved).
Second, it is also possible that you could mean that evolution is the only answer science has come up with to account for evolution. If by "gradual change… over the existence of the earth" you mean evolution from one species to another such that we have common descent then all you are saying is that evolution is the only answer science has come up with to explain evolution. I really don't need to explain to anyone how this is circular reasoning. It's a ridiculous statement, and that's being kind.
Putting it in all caps won't win you any converts.
Are we supposed to be awestruck by your circular reasoning? Anyone can go to this thread and see more of your circular reasoning on display: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/16030-theory-evolution.html
What I gave you was called a counter-example. I used the same method of reasoning used to prove evolution, according to you, to prove the evolution of bicycles. You're right, it was a pathetic attempt to prove the evolution of bicycles, but that's only because the attempted proof of evolution was pathetic.
You see someone asked you for proof of evolution. In response, you gave a link to a website. The website gave us a fairytale about how a pregnant female tortoise was washed on the island in a storm and then gave birth to other tortoises who over time got longer necks. To illustrate this imaginative story it simply showed us a picture of a turtle with a short neck, then a turtle with a slightly longer neck and then a turtle with an even longer neck.
So if turtles with longer necks proves that they evolved from turtles with shorter necks then cycles with two wheels proved they evolved from cycles with one wheel. After all, two wheels is greater than one wheel just like a longer neck is longer than a shorter one.
If one is "proof" then so is the other. Of course, neither are proofs. Both arguments are stupid at best.
Now you seem to capitalize on the fact that the objects I used are "MAN MADE" and think this is why it is "truly laughable."
In that case, I can point out that the objects you appealed to (tortoises) are "GOD MADE" and therefore it is your own proof that is "truly laughable" by your own standard.
The theory of evolution hasn't been a constant. So at which point do you think the theory of evolution became robust enough that it allowed for the discipline of biology to be practiced?
You are still having the same difficulty that you had in our last discussion: you can't seem to make your argument without assuming what you should be proving.
You say that only evolution can explain the gradual changes observed in plants and animals over the existence of the earth. Now, this could mean one of two things.
First, it could mean species adaptation. What you are saying is that we need "macroevolution" (or the theory of common descent via natural selection) to explain adaptation. But this seems obviously false. We don't need the theory of evolution (which refers to macro-evolution, common descent, natural selection etc) in order to explain species adaptation. If you think we do need "macroevolution" to explain adaptation then please give us some argument rather than your dogmatic assertions.
Creationists believe that species can vary and adapt. An obvious example would be dogs or even the Galapagos tortoises you tried to pawn off as a proof of evolution earlier. So to assert that evolution is the only explanation of variation and adaptation is question begging (assuming what needs to be proved).
Second, it is also possible that you could mean that evolution is the only answer science has come up with to account for evolution. If by "gradual change… over the existence of the earth" you mean evolution from one species to another such that we have common descent then all you are saying is that evolution is the only answer science has come up with to explain evolution. I really don't need to explain to anyone how this is circular reasoning. It's a ridiculous statement, and that's being kind.
Putting it in all caps won't win you any converts.
Are we supposed to be awestruck by your circular reasoning? Anyone can go to this thread and see more of your circular reasoning on display: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/16030-theory-evolution.html
What I gave you was called a counter-example. I used the same method of reasoning used to prove evolution, according to you, to prove the evolution of bicycles. You're right, it was a pathetic attempt to prove the evolution of bicycles, but that's only because the attempted proof of evolution was pathetic.
You see someone asked you for proof of evolution. In response, you gave a link to a website. The website gave us a fairytale about how a pregnant female tortoise was washed on the island in a storm and then gave birth to other tortoises who over time got longer necks. To illustrate this imaginative story it simply showed us a picture of a turtle with a short neck, then a turtle with a slightly longer neck and then a turtle with an even longer neck.
So if turtles with longer necks proves that they evolved from turtles with shorter necks then cycles with two wheels proved they evolved from cycles with one wheel. After all, two wheels is greater than one wheel just like a longer neck is longer than a shorter one.
If one is "proof" then so is the other. Of course, neither are proofs. Both arguments are stupid at best.
Now you seem to capitalize on the fact that the objects I used are "MAN MADE" and think this is why it is "truly laughable."
In that case, I can point out that the objects you appealed to (tortoises) are "GOD MADE" and therefore it is your own proof that is "truly laughable" by your own standard.
ARE you serious? Are you really trying to prove Evolution(Goo to you) by evolution(change) That is a logical fallacy. You are confusing the terms. A bike, to a unicycle, is change. The turtles, are still turtles, NOT non-turtles.
Mendelian genetics disproved evolution years before they publically affirmed his theories. What did they do in the meantime, they produced a Rescuing device to save their worldview ie. mutations
Mendelian genetics disproved evolution years before they publically affirmed his theories. What did they do in the meantime, they produced a Rescuing device to save their worldview ie. mutations
Biology can go on, definitely without Evolution. Read some Paul Davies if you get a chance. Biologists cannot even define terms like Species, or vestigial structure. They are biased terms based on Evolution. Species is so confusing because everyone wants to be the "first" to discover something, that the same "species" will have several different names.
Barimiology based on the Biblical Kind, say Dog kind, Cat kind, and in itself the genetic information contained to produce all the variety we see today.
Barimiology based on the Biblical Kind, say Dog kind, Cat kind, and in itself the genetic information contained to produce all the variety we see today.
P
Hi Rissa. Find out who Charles Darwin was, and what was really behind his Theory of Evolution. Start with the word Eugenics - Hitler liked it, it's the old theory of the survival of the fittest.
One way to explain this to a child is to suggest if that theory was right, she should be able to look out the window and see a frog in a top hat getting off the bus or a snail in the next desk at school.
For that theory to be right we would have to see every creature evolving in every stage all around today us and we don't. God provided for adaptation, and a limited form of what you could call evolution, but always limited to that species. Nothing's changed.
One way to explain this to a child is to suggest if that theory was right, she should be able to look out the window and see a frog in a top hat getting off the bus or a snail in the next desk at school.
For that theory to be right we would have to see every creature evolving in every stage all around today us and we don't. God provided for adaptation, and a limited form of what you could call evolution, but always limited to that species. Nothing's changed.
R
OKay... here's what i have to say.......
STOP THE DEBATE!!!!!!
I didn't ask for it. I don't care about your theories of evolution. This helps no one and only causes tension.
If you're going to post on this thread, address your post to ME, the OP. Not to debate with each other.
Please and thank you. And much thank you to those who didn't get involved with the debate.
STOP THE DEBATE!!!!!!
I didn't ask for it. I don't care about your theories of evolution. This helps no one and only causes tension.
If you're going to post on this thread, address your post to ME, the OP. Not to debate with each other.
Please and thank you. And much thank you to those who didn't get involved with the debate.
D
Hey Rissa, I would disagree with this - I understand I don't know you and unfortunately I'm not psychic despite my many desires to be so, but if you are a rational person then you absolutely do learn about everything, religion included, to determine what is true and what is not. It's certainly in a person's best interests if they are a seeker to keep an open mind, and that is precisely what God is instructing. To ensure we do not fear learning and more importantly, we do not fear applying skeptical thinking to the things we encounter.
To make sure we hold on to the good, for you this may not apply in the seeker sense, but for a child when they reach a certain age they will question what they know.
Well perhaps there are. Personally I do not believe so, but then my faith doesn't rest on a sliding scale of who has the most collective truths. But I digress, the reason I said to test everything and hold on to what is true, is because that is the faith that God gave us, faith in this sense - the Biblical sense - meaning trust. So much so that God Himself trusts His creation to come to Him, through His command to test the world around them.
I kinda feel that you may slip back into the idea that you should learn only about other things to be able to defend your faith, and that your faith is an absolute truth. I would suggest, that for a non-theist, this will really deter them from Christianity. To them it will seem a presupposition, an assumed truth, not one reasoned rationally or found through experience. This is just my advice, I know how I used to respond to people who said that. Not even strangers, my mother had many a talk with me about her faith and nothing made me want to run away from it more than those conversations. It was only when I found a Christian who was open to my critiques of Christianity and worked with me through them, using the Bible, that I can to believe it because I found it to be true. I hope you see the difference.
It seems your beliefs are fundamental at their core. I guess my question would be, why do you need to take everything in the Bible as literal truth. We use metaphors and allegory in our lives every day to illustrate a point simply and succinctly rather than whipping out a history book and finding a matching historical truth to illustrate our lesson. If you wish to learn more about this, I would like to suggest learning about linguistics, as the methods employed to determine what is written as a historical narrative, and what is written as allegory are quite interesting and they really helped me broaden how I read the Bible and appreciate the true gift of the writers and their inspirational force. Ultimately whether you feel the Bible is literal, or not, really has little impact on your relationship with God I feel - but I do feel that outsiders are far more receptive when they feel that able to approach the Bible using their rational and skeptical minds - and it is my entire point that we should have trust (faith) in God, that he would not have commanded us to do this, if it does not work and ultimately lead us to a relationship with God.
To make sure we hold on to the good, for you this may not apply in the seeker sense, but for a child when they reach a certain age they will question what they know.
Well perhaps there are. Personally I do not believe so, but then my faith doesn't rest on a sliding scale of who has the most collective truths. But I digress, the reason I said to test everything and hold on to what is true, is because that is the faith that God gave us, faith in this sense - the Biblical sense - meaning trust. So much so that God Himself trusts His creation to come to Him, through His command to test the world around them.
I kinda feel that you may slip back into the idea that you should learn only about other things to be able to defend your faith, and that your faith is an absolute truth. I would suggest, that for a non-theist, this will really deter them from Christianity. To them it will seem a presupposition, an assumed truth, not one reasoned rationally or found through experience. This is just my advice, I know how I used to respond to people who said that. Not even strangers, my mother had many a talk with me about her faith and nothing made me want to run away from it more than those conversations. It was only when I found a Christian who was open to my critiques of Christianity and worked with me through them, using the Bible, that I can to believe it because I found it to be true. I hope you see the difference.
It seems your beliefs are fundamental at their core. I guess my question would be, why do you need to take everything in the Bible as literal truth. We use metaphors and allegory in our lives every day to illustrate a point simply and succinctly rather than whipping out a history book and finding a matching historical truth to illustrate our lesson. If you wish to learn more about this, I would like to suggest learning about linguistics, as the methods employed to determine what is written as a historical narrative, and what is written as allegory are quite interesting and they really helped me broaden how I read the Bible and appreciate the true gift of the writers and their inspirational force. Ultimately whether you feel the Bible is literal, or not, really has little impact on your relationship with God I feel - but I do feel that outsiders are far more receptive when they feel that able to approach the Bible using their rational and skeptical minds - and it is my entire point that we should have trust (faith) in God, that he would not have commanded us to do this, if it does not work and ultimately lead us to a relationship with God.
C
Digitalos,
First of all, my condolences on England's loss to Germany today
In fact there are countless beliefs that persons hold uncritically. For example, the belief that other persons have minds or the belief that 2 + 2 = 4.
Do you think that we should be "open minded" and go on a rational quest to determine whether or not there are other persons with minds? (This has been done of course by some philosophers.)
Should we hold the belief that there are other minds tentatively?
You may hold to such a skepticism at the theoretical level, as a sophist, but I guarantee that you don't live out that sort of sophistry. When you cross the street you don't hold it tentatively that being hit by a bus might not actually do you harm.
You don't set out on a rational crusade to see if gravity still works every morning (maybe this is the day it has stopped?) or that your mom is truly your mom and not a clone alien (she might be, after all).
So are you going to say that we should hold *all* our beliefs in a skeptic's fashion or are you going to say that we should only hold *some* beliefs in a skeptic's fashion?
If the former, then we should hold the belief that we should hold all our beliefs in a skeptic's fashion in a skeptic's fashion. (If you didn't catch that, read it again.) So we should be skeptical of your own claim. Why accept it?
If the latter, then what sort of beliefs are you claiming that we should hold onto in this manner? And why is our god-belief one of those beliefs?
This seems to imply that a belief is only (or most honorably) rationally held to when we are "objectively" uninterested in the subject under question.
But there is no such thing as this sort of disinterested objectivism, especially when it comes to the type of god-belief that hangs your soul in an eternal balance.
Jesus certainly didn't teach that there was any sort of neutrality:
"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters" (Mat. 12:30).
The unbeliever who examines Christianity isn't being neutral and the Christian who takes an intellectual look at his faith shouldn't try to be neutral either (he couldn't achieve it anyway).
Proverbs 1:7 tells us that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge," it does not tell us that fear of the Lord is the end of a quest for knowledge.
But your claim of "test everything" is unlivable. We would have to test the very claim that we should test everything. Then we would have to test that test. Then we would have to test the test of the test.
What you proposes doesn't lead to knowledge, it leads to a never ending regress where no one can ever get to that final point and achieve it.
And I don't see that Abraham, when he was told by God to kill his son, tested God's command. At least not in the sense you're speaking of. In fact we are told “You shall not put the LORD your God to the test…" (Deuteronomy 6:16).
And why shouldn't a Christian believe that their faith is an absolute truth? If you know the truth, and someone makes an absurd claim to the contrary, then it wouldn't be very rational to throw what you know to the wind and start from scratch, would it?
If I already know that p and someone claims not p then it seems perfectly acceptable for me to merely go about showing that not not p rather than pretending that I don't know that p. Otherwise, I could cast all of your beliefs into doubt simply by making contrary assertions and you would never be able to justify them because I could always make a claim that your justification is false.
Perhaps, but if what I'm claiming is a biblical epistemology and if our faith is absolutely true then the fact that this might upset some anti-theist is really beside the point, isn't it? Who cares? As Christians we set out to proclaim the truth, not to re-create a more palatable "truth" to go easy on anti-theists.
The gospel itself is a "deterrant" from Christianity ("...a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles" (1 Cor. 1.23)). So if we are going to try and construct a worldview that is palatable to the anti-theist then we really might as well start with re-writing the gospel.
That's precisely what it is, a presupposition. But presuppositions are not irrational or a-rational nor is it the case that a presupposition cannot find confirmation through experience.
Furthermore, it's not as though the atheist doesn't have his own presuppositions (or that you don't have presuppositions). Everyone must have presuppositions by the nature of the case. No one starts from scratch (as a tabula rasa). Everyone has a starting, a presupposition, by which they interpret other evidences.
So if the anti-theist gets fussy about the Christian having presuppositions then the Christian should just expose the presuppositions of the anti-theist.
Of course the Bible, as literature, uses metaphors and symbolism and poetry and hyperbole etc. etc. It also uses historical narrative, which would be the case for Genesis. At best, it might be what Jack Collins calls "exalted prose narrative," but prose narrative nonetheless.
That's painting with too broad a brush. If I think Jesus is just a mythical figure to teach us about sacrificial love, do you think that will affect your relationship with God?
First of all, my condolences on England's loss to Germany today
In fact there are countless beliefs that persons hold uncritically. For example, the belief that other persons have minds or the belief that 2 + 2 = 4.
Do you think that we should be "open minded" and go on a rational quest to determine whether or not there are other persons with minds? (This has been done of course by some philosophers.)
Should we hold the belief that there are other minds tentatively?
You may hold to such a skepticism at the theoretical level, as a sophist, but I guarantee that you don't live out that sort of sophistry. When you cross the street you don't hold it tentatively that being hit by a bus might not actually do you harm.
You don't set out on a rational crusade to see if gravity still works every morning (maybe this is the day it has stopped?) or that your mom is truly your mom and not a clone alien (she might be, after all).
So are you going to say that we should hold *all* our beliefs in a skeptic's fashion or are you going to say that we should only hold *some* beliefs in a skeptic's fashion?
If the former, then we should hold the belief that we should hold all our beliefs in a skeptic's fashion in a skeptic's fashion. (If you didn't catch that, read it again.) So we should be skeptical of your own claim. Why accept it?
If the latter, then what sort of beliefs are you claiming that we should hold onto in this manner? And why is our god-belief one of those beliefs?
This seems to imply that a belief is only (or most honorably) rationally held to when we are "objectively" uninterested in the subject under question.
But there is no such thing as this sort of disinterested objectivism, especially when it comes to the type of god-belief that hangs your soul in an eternal balance.
Jesus certainly didn't teach that there was any sort of neutrality:
"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters" (Mat. 12:30).
The unbeliever who examines Christianity isn't being neutral and the Christian who takes an intellectual look at his faith shouldn't try to be neutral either (he couldn't achieve it anyway).
Proverbs 1:7 tells us that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge," it does not tell us that fear of the Lord is the end of a quest for knowledge.
But your claim of "test everything" is unlivable. We would have to test the very claim that we should test everything. Then we would have to test that test. Then we would have to test the test of the test.
What you proposes doesn't lead to knowledge, it leads to a never ending regress where no one can ever get to that final point and achieve it.
And I don't see that Abraham, when he was told by God to kill his son, tested God's command. At least not in the sense you're speaking of. In fact we are told “You shall not put the LORD your God to the test…" (Deuteronomy 6:16).
And why shouldn't a Christian believe that their faith is an absolute truth? If you know the truth, and someone makes an absurd claim to the contrary, then it wouldn't be very rational to throw what you know to the wind and start from scratch, would it?
If I already know that p and someone claims not p then it seems perfectly acceptable for me to merely go about showing that not not p rather than pretending that I don't know that p. Otherwise, I could cast all of your beliefs into doubt simply by making contrary assertions and you would never be able to justify them because I could always make a claim that your justification is false.
Perhaps, but if what I'm claiming is a biblical epistemology and if our faith is absolutely true then the fact that this might upset some anti-theist is really beside the point, isn't it? Who cares? As Christians we set out to proclaim the truth, not to re-create a more palatable "truth" to go easy on anti-theists.
The gospel itself is a "deterrant" from Christianity ("...a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles" (1 Cor. 1.23)). So if we are going to try and construct a worldview that is palatable to the anti-theist then we really might as well start with re-writing the gospel.
That's precisely what it is, a presupposition. But presuppositions are not irrational or a-rational nor is it the case that a presupposition cannot find confirmation through experience.
Furthermore, it's not as though the atheist doesn't have his own presuppositions (or that you don't have presuppositions). Everyone must have presuppositions by the nature of the case. No one starts from scratch (as a tabula rasa). Everyone has a starting, a presupposition, by which they interpret other evidences.
So if the anti-theist gets fussy about the Christian having presuppositions then the Christian should just expose the presuppositions of the anti-theist.
Of course the Bible, as literature, uses metaphors and symbolism and poetry and hyperbole etc. etc. It also uses historical narrative, which would be the case for Genesis. At best, it might be what Jack Collins calls "exalted prose narrative," but prose narrative nonetheless.
That's painting with too broad a brush. If I think Jesus is just a mythical figure to teach us about sacrificial love, do you think that will affect your relationship with God?
R
credo_ut_intelligam, if you don't mind taking this to pm with digitalos, i would be much obliged. i replied to him in pm as well, that way this thread doesn't enter itself in ANOTHER debate.
please direct posts to the op, or take it to pm. i'm not a mod. i just don't want this thread to become a stupid debate and not directing the question I had.
please direct posts to the op, or take it to pm. i'm not a mod. i just don't want this thread to become a stupid debate and not directing the question I had.
Ok I think I have an answer for you. I say respect her view and treat her just as you would if there was no conflicting opinion. That means to treat her with compassion, empathy, respect, etc... all the ways that loving sisters should treat each other. You have to remain an open door for her to come to when she is ready to give Christ another try, and in the meantime keep her and your niece in your prayers so that God can work on softening her heart.
"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 7:12 NASB
"Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them." - Luke 6:31-32 NASB
I hope that helps answer your question.
"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 7:12 NASB
"Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them." - Luke 6:31-32 NASB
I hope that helps answer your question.
B
Why do you see a conflict coming with your sister? We are commanded to love - we are not commanded to have an agenda with our relationships. All too often we believers fall into the trap that we have to have some agenda with all of our relationships. I need to lead so-and-so. I need to be a light to so-and-so. I need to convince so-and-so of God. etc.
The thing is, you and I cannot convince anyone of Christ. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. Your job is to unconditionally love your sister and her husband regardless and let God sort out the conviction business. See Christ's discussion of the two commandments. I agree with zeroturbulance on this issue.
Avoid the conflict and embrace love. I'm not saying run from evil, I'm telling you don't embrace strife and contention based on your differences in faith. There is likely a very deep wound that caused your sister to flee from the faith. She doesn't need to be stoned, she needs to be loved. I deal with this all the time. By brother is a believer however, he leads a very ugly life. I don't judge him or attempt to convict him of his lifestyle - he knows. I just love him, pray for him and trust God to deal with his heart.
The thing is, you and I cannot convince anyone of Christ. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. Your job is to unconditionally love your sister and her husband regardless and let God sort out the conviction business. See Christ's discussion of the two commandments. I agree with zeroturbulance on this issue.
Avoid the conflict and embrace love. I'm not saying run from evil, I'm telling you don't embrace strife and contention based on your differences in faith. There is likely a very deep wound that caused your sister to flee from the faith. She doesn't need to be stoned, she needs to be loved. I deal with this all the time. By brother is a believer however, he leads a very ugly life. I don't judge him or attempt to convict him of his lifestyle - he knows. I just love him, pray for him and trust God to deal with his heart.
R
G'day Rissa77,
I will try to give you my viewpoint as being an explicit Atheist. Brandy is exhibiting a few different views there, some of them conflicting, she is getting preachy to you (from what I can understand) yet giving freedom of choice to the child for their faith, unfortunately this type of Atheist exists (90% of us aren't preachy or noisy and actually take great interest in the many faiths of the world). I believe the best course of action is for you to get involved with the child's education in a manner that is acceptable to the parents, as Brandy put it if the child is to learn about Christianity they are to learn about other religions also.
Go out and buy a children's book about Christianity/Jesus and hand it to your sister, tell your sister you would like to be involved in the faith of the child and that she should go out and get some more picture books about other faiths the child will probably quickly take a liking to one of them. If it happens to be Christianity - that's great for you! If not you still tried and no hands where forced. I believe this is a grace-full solution! If you notice Brandy getting very preachy to the child about Atheism tell her she's being a hypocrite (as passing on religion / belief to your child is something a theist would do), you will notice an immediate difference in behavior if your sister holds her Atheism close to her heart. Your sister could also be going through a fad, there are quite a large number of Atheists now that are just testing the waters.
I hope that you and the child are well. If you have any questions please feel free to send a message,
Your friendly neighborhood Atheist,
Roger
I will try to give you my viewpoint as being an explicit Atheist. Brandy is exhibiting a few different views there, some of them conflicting, she is getting preachy to you (from what I can understand) yet giving freedom of choice to the child for their faith, unfortunately this type of Atheist exists (90% of us aren't preachy or noisy and actually take great interest in the many faiths of the world). I believe the best course of action is for you to get involved with the child's education in a manner that is acceptable to the parents, as Brandy put it if the child is to learn about Christianity they are to learn about other religions also.
Go out and buy a children's book about Christianity/Jesus and hand it to your sister, tell your sister you would like to be involved in the faith of the child and that she should go out and get some more picture books about other faiths the child will probably quickly take a liking to one of them. If it happens to be Christianity - that's great for you! If not you still tried and no hands where forced. I believe this is a grace-full solution! If you notice Brandy getting very preachy to the child about Atheism tell her she's being a hypocrite (as passing on religion / belief to your child is something a theist would do), you will notice an immediate difference in behavior if your sister holds her Atheism close to her heart. Your sister could also be going through a fad, there are quite a large number of Atheists now that are just testing the waters.
I hope that you and the child are well. If you have any questions please feel free to send a message
,Your friendly neighborhood Atheist,
Roger