Is religious belief that important to you in a relationship?
I'll be on topic finally....
Religion wasn't an issue as long as there were no arguments or disrespect about it. I've been around a couple people who I couldn't even say what I thought without them making fun of me and claiming I was stupid. That's not cool. I wouldn't want a partner who does that. But I prefer someone who believes similarly to me, just the same as I want someone who votes similarly to me and has a sociological view similar to mine. There's a level of compatibility there that has to be functional, not just us overlooking or not talking about certain subjects. I think if I had those kinds of differences with someone, it would be a matter of overlooking things I disagree with or just avoiding certain subjects.
I'm pretty tolerant of what other people believe who aren't my partner. My friends are all over the place. The only people I don't keep company with are the bigots. I'm very bigoted of bigots, I admit, and I actually cut someone out (who I had A TON in common with and we got along so well) because she didn't believe gay people had a right to marry in this country based on her Roman Catholic beliefs. That's like taking a dump on my carpet every time you visit and expecting me to overlook that because we love artisan baking and have lots of kids and so on. But her being Roman Catholic and thinking my Eucharist was unconsecrated didn't bother me. For my partner, I like that we're on the same page. It took a while to get there. When we met, I was Roman Catholic and he was Campbellite (Church of Christ). We're now both Episcopalian.
So I guess I'll be one of the few Christians on here who actually says it does matter and I don't think I could date an atheist or agnostic or baptist or muslim or jewish person or buddhist or pagan or whatever. I have dated many people of different religions in the past and it was all cool (except for the Buddhist who spent our entire date trying to sell me on the benefits of being Buddhist and actually said a great thing was that you didn't need to proselytize.) but I just don't think I'd do that again if I was looking for a serious relationship and not just a hook-up or fling.
And, no matter what anyone tells you about biblical Scripture, a couple can be "unequally yoked". St. Paul was referring to a very specific type of people and clergy. If people are going to lend credibility to St. Paul for that notion, they should understand that St. Paul wrote more generally and stated that if one spouse was a believer, they could "cover" the non-believing spouse. In essence, if you're married, your believing spouse gets a pass to heaven that's +1 Guest. I kid you not. It's in there. And it says that the believing spouse needs to be extra cool and caring for their non-believing spouse so maybe they see how awesome it is to be Christian and may convert on their own. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but that's really the message. So Christians do not have to be all stingy like me. They can very easily have spouses who subscribe to different beliefs. If you ever hear anyone say the "unequally yoked" thing, don't believe it... unless you're clergy, then it does kinda apply to you... but you should already know about that then.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
Most atheists are not strong atheists.
I disagree, they vary just the same as those with religious belief.
Yes, and just as it's incorrect to refer to, say, Pentecostals as if they are synonymous with Christianity, proper,
it is also incorrect to equivocate atheism, a lack of belief, with strong atheism, a positive belief that accompanies the lack of one.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
Oh yeah? What of virgin births, Jewish zombies, self-induced resurrections, talking snakes and donkeys, alchemy, and some poor schmuck getting stuck rounding up the over 15,000 species of BUTTERFLY, one of each sex, so that they wouldn't befoul the big-@ss boat with millions and millions of animal species pairs by having immoral gay butterfly sex?
ROFL.
The implication that skeptics are somehow intolerant or persecuting theists by being simply unable to date them is fallacious,
though typical of the persecution complex some of the latter seem to have-
they, themselves would likely not enter into a relationship or choose to have children with someone who claimed to hear voices guiding their actions, or who expected them to keep a straight face (gotta be respectful!) while they talked about the spirits of faeries and blessings of the almighty ginger leprechaun.
Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 17 May 2011, 10:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I am a Christian (Lutheran to be specific), but I don't require a partner to be of a specific faith, nor do I try to convert people. All I do is assure those of starkly different religious views that I am not an ultra-fundamentalist nutjob.
I fully support the rights of women and the LGBT community, and understand that there are circumstances in which a woman may need an abortion.
However, I may not be compatible with some faiths, or even other Christian denominations (if you read my posts in the Adult forum, you'll know why). Also, many of the people who have similar interests as me tend to be classified as hipster or bohemian, although I don't consider myself to be one.
_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!
Last edited by Tim_Tex on 17 May 2011, 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
nick007
Veteran
Joined: 4 May 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,657
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in capitalistic military dictatorship called USA
I'm a Secular Humanist but I have some conservative traditional morel values that are more common with religious. One of the rezones I'm a Secular Humanist is because I believe in being respectful of others beliefs & not pushing your beliefs on anyone. If my potential partern can accept that; I can accept her beliefs. If I have to go to church 1ce as week with her; that's fine but I won'[t confess my sins to a priest, get in line for Eucharist, make the sing of the cross, or pray
_________________
"I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem!"
"Hear all, trust nothing"
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ru ... cquisition
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
I fully support the rights of women and the LGBT community, and understand that there are circumstances in which a woman may need an abortion.
Your implication that female autonomy is contingent on special circumstances is not a moderate position,
regardless of false appeals to the middle implying it is, made in the cultural-political cesspit.
I fully support the rights of women and the LGBT community, and understand that there are circumstances in which a woman may need an abortion.
Your implication that female autonomy is contingent on special circumstances is not a moderate position,
regardless of false appeals to the middle implying it is, made in the cultural-political cesspit.
You should've just said you're "pro-choice", Tim_Tex, and escaped the semantic argument.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
I fully support the rights of women and the LGBT community, and understand that there are circumstances in which a woman may need an abortion.
Your implication that female autonomy is contingent on special circumstances is not a moderate position,
regardless of false appeals to the middle implying it is, made in the cultural-political cesspit.
You should've just said you're "pro-choice", Tim_Tex, and escaped the semantic argument.
No need to lie- just don't attempt to portray your beliefs as somehow progressive if they're neo-conservative.
I fully support the rights of women and the LGBT community, and understand that there are circumstances in which a woman may need an abortion.
Your implication that female autonomy is contingent on special circumstances is not a moderate position,
regardless of false appeals to the middle implying it is, made in the cultural-political cesspit.
You should've just said you're "pro-choice", Tim_Tex, and escaped the semantic argument.
No need to lie- just don't attempt to portray your beliefs as somehow progressive if they're neo-conservative.
You're assuming quite a bit about him based solely on semantics.
i completely forgot about that! my husband used to tell me that, back in the day when he was more devoutly Christian. he knows his scripture, like you. i told him i didn't want to go, because it felt like i would be his property that was simply expected to go along with his path. i said that i would rather risk suffering for my own decisions than get a free ride for his choices. he was horrified by that, obviously, but we eventually came to understand each other.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
i completely forgot about that! my husband used to tell me that, back in the day when he was more devoutly Christian. he knows his scripture, like you. i told him i didn't want to go, because it felt like i would be his property that was simply expected to go along with his path. i said that i would rather risk suffering for my own decisions than get a free ride for his choices. he was horrified by that, obviously, but we eventually came to understand each other.
To be perfectly frank about Wefunction's view of interfaith marriage based on 2nd Corinthians 6:14, I personal disagree with the ideal of a partner's 'free ride' to heaven, as I feel there's missing elements to that idea, who knows the concept of "for time and eternity" might resolve that? Re clergy and marriage plus some food for thought, 1st Timothy 3:2 talking about the qualifications set for becoming a bishop one of which is this "the husband of one wife", Catholic Bishops might have a problem.
Re clergy and marriage plus some food for thought, 1st Timothy 3:2 talking about the qualifications set for becoming a bishop one of which is this "the husband of one wife", Catholic Bishops might have a problem.
I doubt that since St. Paul was speaking to a people who were populated with married men. The distinction was for them to have one wife as opposed to having a dozen wives. He also instructs these same people to remain single and celibate if they're lucky enough to be unmarried when they convert. This is what set the tone for the dictate of celibacy and bachelorhood for Catholic clergy.
Re clergy and marriage plus some food for thought, 1st Timothy 3:2 talking about the qualifications set for becoming a bishop one of which is this "the husband of one wife", Catholic Bishops might have a problem.
I doubt that since St. Paul was speaking to a people who were populated with married men. The distinction was for them to have one wife as opposed to having a dozen wives. He also instructs these same people to remain single and celibate if they're lucky enough to be unmarried when they convert. This is what set the tone for the dictate of celibacy and bachelorhood for Catholic clergy.
I've never really understood celibacy and religion. Could you shed some light on it for me, we?
_________________
Not currently a moderator
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
What The Right Gets Wrong About Religious Freedom |
09 Nov 2024, 2:59 pm |
Christian Religious appropriation in Texas |
01 Dec 2024, 10:23 pm |
Have you been in a romantic relationship with another Aspie? |
04 Jan 2025, 10:35 pm |
What makes the difference between being in a relationship or |
05 Nov 2024, 2:18 pm |