Pat Robertson on why Christians are forbbiden to marry evil atheists unless they give their hearts to Jebus:
Recent Comments
- kholdom0790: Why do parents get to decide it’s fine to risk the lives of every child... on Vaccination and Taxes
- Paul: And thus was born religious mysogeny on Why Are You Here, Jesus?
- Paul: I need this on a t shirt on Can I hear an Amen?
- kholdom0790: What a champ. I have admired this guy for years, but now it’s at... on Attenborough on The Almighty
- grumpygirl: Back in those days, there were the traditional but liberal... on Mr. Conservative on religion and politics
- grumpygirl: They’d be calling him a RINO. Back from the days when... on Mr. Conservative on religion and politics
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
Atheists serve satan? He has a very construed conception of atheism and the kind of people most atheists are. Well I guess that is what you get when you ask Pat Robertson for advice.
Hopefully that woman didn’t actually break off her four year-old relationship with her fiance because of that clown’s advice. I know fundamentalist Christians who think Pat Robertson is a nutcase.
I think they’re all nutcases. Their problem is that, they live in thier little box, and as long as everything in their box is ok, they are ok. The problem with that is, they think that the universe (not just world) is their box.
And they also think this box is a litter box… they bury crap everywhere!
Pat Robertson, the Richard Cranium of evangelicals.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’d have to ask the same question. I’m an atheist, and if my boyfriend of four years found Jesus Christ the Lord and Savior, I don’t think it would work out. I don’t know what the statute of limitations is on this. What if I married another atheist, and we were married happily enough for 10 or 20 years, and THEN he found lord, I don’t know that we would have to part, but I would have to say there’d be some tension. I could handle a mild theist, I like to think, a non-church-goer, someone who wouldn’t make a big deal about my soul and the souls of our children, etc. and just have an ordinary life where he just happened to think there was a god and I didn’t. I don’t know what to think of this in the negative. Pat Robertson’s an idiot, but I think they shouldn’t get married.
I can’t believe this guy actually gives advise to people in America. With people like this around Americans should not concern themselves with the possibility of the Taliban getting their hands on the Pakistan Nuclear Arsenal, but rather be afraid of people who take this guy seriously getting their hands on the US Nuclear Arsenal.
He also forgets God’s love is without condition and he is ignorant enough to think Atheists serve Satan, who by the way does not even exist. I suspect he probably thinks all people who are not Christians serve Satan. My advise to him would be to love without condition because people like him spread hatred, fear and panic with their idiotic ideas.
An interesting note on the whole “Atheists serve Satan” B.S. that xians like to spout – Even Satanists themselves don’t believe that Satan (or any god) exists. I’ve been reading the Satanic Bible – which is a fun read that I recommend for any Atheist – and it’s a philosophy centered on self-gratification and anti-hypocrisy. They more or less observe a direct and aggressive rejection of Christianity – and therefore have chosen Satan as a mascot that embodies that.
I won’t even waste my time watching this dibble since it is just more of his normal BS. Have any of you seen who is vjacks idiot of the week. Take a guess.
I hate when this happens. Just after I hit enter a thought came to me why he wouldn’t want people marrying atheist. When it comes to converting people atheist tend to have more success then the religious. He doesn’t want to lose more of his followers then his pocketbook can afford to lose.
He doesn’t raise as much money as he used to.
I think the fiance should run for his life. Anyone who asks Pat Robertson for advice is going to be a nightmare as a spouse.
OK… this is the most hypocritical thing I’ve ever heard. Didn’t Jesus himself hang out with non-believers, tax men, sinners, etc? But I agree with Christine that the guy needs to RUN, and run far and fast.
well said. Jesus did hang out with non-believers and whenever god instantly killed someone it was ALWAYS a believer… he didn’t bother smiting down non-believers.
This is not just Pat Robertson being an extremist. It is such a common belief among Christians — they are not supposed to be “unequally yoked” with unbelievers in marriage.
To steal a quote from Henry Ford, whether she follows his advice or doesn’t follow his advice, she’s right.
Sorry Pat, but I’m *far* too busy serving my wife to serve Satan.
Well, I wouldn’t want to be unequally yoked to a fundie Christian anyway…
Atheists, don’t marry Christians says I.
That is so true.
Perfect demonstration of how you can be right for the wrong reasons and so be wrong. This muppet is so stupid it’s a wonder he remembers to breath (with any luck he’ll forget sometime very soon) but I do agree that strong faith in a marriage needs to be either matched or there has to be a very firm agreement going in how religion is going to affect things, especially the kids’ schooling.
The woman fielding the questions annoys me even more than Pat does. I can’t abide sycophants and enablers. The people who’ve sacrificed all vestige of independent thought and spend their lives validating authority figures like Pat sicken me. They’re worse than he is; they make it possible for him to exist.
“Yes, Pat, absolutely, that’s so true.” He could have said the moon is made of green cheese; her response would have been the same – a slack-jawed idiot nodding vacuously, eyes glazed over like a deer caught in the headlights. Don’t let ‘em vote or breed, says I.
Well said.
Except that they don’t deny the civil rights of atheists. But yes, she’s annoying.
Did you know that George H W Bush said — in 1987, while he was Vice-President — that he didn’t think atheists should be counted among American citizens?
Can you imagine a US President saying he didn’t think, say, blacks should be counted among American citizens?
Can you imagine not having heard about it?
I think you underestimate general prejudice against atheism.
rodney: I was unaware GHWB said that, and that’s awful. And maybe I am underestimating it. I’ve never felt it myself, and I’m sure that’s entirely possible.
But, on the positive side (and I don’t mean to downplay the seriousness of the comment), that didn’t happen. Atheists still count as members of society and aren’t denied any civil rights (that I’m aware of; am I wrong?).
I guess my point is that prejudice and discrimination are very intimately related, but they aren’t identical. Yes, there’s prejudice (on both sides of the aisle), but that prejudice hasn’t necessarily manifested in systemic discrimination in the same way as it did and still does against groups like homosexuals and minority ethnicities . That’s the only reason I objected to the analogy between atheism and civil rights/gay rights.
Kodie aptly noted that prejudice against atheists isn’t as obvious because of the “invisibility” of atheism. That’s something I hadn’t thought much about before her comment, and since that type of prejudice isn’t something I’ve experienced, maybe I am underestimating it.
You are correct, that is merely GHWB’s personal opinion; his private feelings do not translate directly to public policy. He was not a dictator of one. You missed the point if you think “that is an example of prejudice, not discrimination” in any way mitigates it.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/downey_24_4.htm
(not comprehensive, but worth reading, and can google ‘discrimination against atheists’ for more)
I agree that atheism is simply less visible than other characteristics — less than race and even less than sexual orientation, which is not very visible to begin with — and as a result prejudice and discrimination are not as frequent or obvious. I am freelance, and I do take special care to avoid the subject at work, lest I not get hired there again.
“This is one nation under God” is a much more pervasive attitude than you think. I haven’t told my father about my beliefs. He would literally disown me, no question. He is a homophobe and I’d have better odds telling him I’m gay.
rodney: I do appreciate your perspective and for pointing me to that resource.
Please know that my point isn’t to downplay the prejudice that has clearly been displayed against you.
My only point was to say that I don’t think the analogy between atheists and civil rights/gay rights is a very good one, because both of these groups have been/are being denied some basic civil rights. To my knowledge, that is not happening in the USA right now. Again, to my knowledge…
So, please don’t understand me to be saying anything more than that.
I understand. But please understand that there are also already laws in place (from other civil rights disputes) that protect atheists legally. There are already precedents against discrimination. The prejudice, however, is just as bad if not much worse.
One other thing: I have had a very similar experience in my own life about my beliefs. If my father knew what I really thought about theology (Bible, soteriology, for example), I would face similar consequences.
In fact, I was threatened with being kicked out of my home while I was in high school because I did express disagreement about certain Pentecostal practices….
So, while we have very different worldviews and places in life, we do have that much in common.
I understand. But please understand that there are also already laws in place (from other civil rights disputes) that protect atheists legally. There are already precedents against discrimination. The prejudice, however, is just as bad if not much worse.
I certainly do understand the seriousness of prejudice, and I didn’t in anyway intend to downplay the seriousness of that prejudice. And I think if we’re honest, all of us have experienced it in one way or another. I mentioned the example of my father in my last post, and I could mention a host of others from my experience in high school. For example, it’s not easy to be a high school student who chooses abstinence, especially if you’re an athlete as I was.
I’m not looking for sympathy or trying to play the victim. I just want to make sure that I’m communicating clearly that I understand the seriousness of prejudice, because I obvioulsy implied that I didn’t take it seriuosly in my previous comments.
That said, what I’ve experienced is very different and maybe not as significant,but it’s still prejudice. So I can empathize in at least some way.
It’s still possible to observe prejudice against minority groups who are protected from discrimination. A white person who doesn’t want to date a black person or vice versa. There’s no “default” assumption that all people are white (maybe online there is) unless they speak out that they are black. Heterosexuality seems to be the default assumption unless someone can demonstrate that they are gay, either through gay-associated behaviors (which only arouses suspicion and not proof), or naturally being seen together with someone of the same sex in public demonstrating their sexual intentions through non-sexual activities such as holding hands or being on a date or trying to adopt a child. The only other way is to simply say so.
Atheists don’t have any explicitly associated “behaviors” other than saying so. Even if some theists are open-minded and accepting of “all religions,” many theists have some way of demonstrating their faith, to be seen or heard praying or wearing a symbol or celebrating a holiday.
That doesn’t mean other faiths aren’t discriminated against, or that other less dominant faiths in a community might fear severe expressions of bigotry if they are explicit, and keep their faith quiet outside the household. Still yet, this is a secular-apparent society in which theism may seldom be discussed outside of one’s own church, and yet, is also assumed of others unless spoken otherwise, i.e. even though I never see you at church, I assume you go to your own or at least believe there’s a god.
In my personal experience, if it ever comes up, I don’t feel like there is a fear of losing my job or my home (I’ve never really tested that, in fact), but I think people have a perception of what atheists are like. It could be about our souls, or that we have bad intentions and other things they are taught and believe, or it could just be that the most visible atheists tend to be annoying. When I say “I’m an atheist,” I perceive a change in the acceptance of the other person, a marked surprise, and how they may interact with me later on, but obviously that’s mild compared to other regions. It depends on the community and how difficult it is to demonstrate atheism and rationality without being perceived as a windbag on the subject, or having some way of exemplifying “not such a bad person after all”.
Christians and other theists can tend to the same end of the spectrum, but the perception generally is (at least in my community), that that doesn’t represent for all of Christians. When I read about the extreme faith of that woman who starved her child, or those guys who take children to the museum for Creationism Tours, I don’t use that as an argument against Christians, for to me, that’s like building a perception about gay people all being perverts, or black people all being criminals milking the welfare. Some people are like that, but it’s hardly fair to use true examples of either to build a prejudice against an entire category of people. I don’t think atheists get the same treatment.
What I said earlier about theism being stupid, and as a matter of degrees, without having to use the word “stupid,” just saying you’re an atheist implies that or can be inferred by the theist whom you’ve just told, and their reaction can often simply be attributed to their sensitivity, their reception of that comment, in that their own beliefs are being judged and challenged and defensive, their own persecution, as it is. But most atheists, I think, are just atheists, and they’re not trying to start arguments or make theists feel diminished. Most reactions to my atheism seem to boil down to this last one, and possibly being likened to the louder atheists.
Putting Robertson’s baggage aside, I’d wonder what people here would think about the issue in general.
Would it be possible to have a marriage between a committed atheist and a committed Christian? Or, would the differences be too great to reconcile?
I think I tend to agree with Kodie, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’d have to ask the same question. I’m an atheist, and if my boyfriend of four years found Jesus Christ the Lord and Savior, I don’t think it would work out. but I’m curious how others might respond.
You are talking about my husband and I. It is possible, but I am reasonably unhappy.
If it’s not too forward or too personal, would you recommend entering into such a relationship to someone who is considering it? Again, if it’s too forward, feel free to ignore me :) I don’t mean to be nosy; I’m just curious what someone from a different perspective would say about it.
As I said at the beginning of the thread, Atheists should RUN fast and furiously away from marrying Christians. DON’T DO IT. DON’T.
Why would an atheist want to live with someone who is naive enough to believe in fairy tales? Or who thinks I’m somehow inferior for not believing in Jesus? Or who is hoping to convert me? Why?
A person who is naive enough to believe in biblical fables also tends to be naive with other important life issues, too. So no, NO, NO, NO, NO.
Was that loud enough or should I scream again? NO.
Depends on the person I guess. Me and the wife are doing fine and she’s a christian, but she’s also a pretty smart cookie. She was raised Catholic, but has never really given the whole religion issue a while lot of time to research, shes too busy to worry about it. She’s not practicing as much as she was, and I think the big thing is, she takes other “life issues” ,as you put it, more seriously and realistically. She has never tried to convert me, or said anything which makes me think that im inferior for not knowing jeezus (and I can think of a couple times i’ve slipped and said something negative about Xtians). We went into the relationship understanding eachothers viewpoints and equally respect that the other wont try to “convert” the other. To us, there’s something more important to worry about than eachother religious philosophy.
So, it can work, just depends on the person and how strong your relationship really is.
I think it’s unfortunate that you think I’m naive, but I do agree with you (and Pat, frankly): As a general rule, Christians and atheists shouldn’t get married.
That said, it seems like it can work, as Slurms example shows. It seems to me, though, that you’re the exception, not the rule. Is that a fair way of putting it?
There is a part of me that’s just fundamentally atheist. I have found this forum but I haven’t discussed these things most of my life. It’s not my favorite subject. I find it interesting to be here, as a place to examine and digest my thoughts and the thoughts of others who think like me and who think differently than me or who arrived at atheism differently or who study it in far greater depth than I’ve ever cared to. I have recently come out of an online off-topic discussion about the existence of god, and it was civil. I don’t have conversations like this in my life, I keep it to interested parties. Part of me thinks believing in god isn’t just different, it’s stupid. So if I were to marry a theist, it could mean little in the grand scheme of things that they weren’t as smart about one thing than I was. If my latent atheism in the relationship doesn’t bother them, and their latent belief in god wouldn’t bother me, it’s ok, as long as there was compatibility otherwise.
By way of analogy, I met a guy who loved camping and I wondered briefly what a relationship between us would be like (should I make a move on him, in other words). I mean, he really loved camping, this was his passion. I could live in a tent by a lake in the summer for a week, but he was looking online one day for a super thermal sleeping bag/jumpsuit such that he could trudge up a mountain carrying very little, and just lay down to sleep on top of the bitter cold snow. I can’t be his girl. He may enjoy the solitude of such a trek all the same, but I think he’d be disappointed eventually since I’ve already decided against the extreme camping style. For all I know, this would not have been an issue with him at all (hypothetically).
However, the objections come whenever the topic would apply. I would silently test my potential spouse: Are you trying to convert me, are you upset all the time that I won’t go to heaven with you, will you make me get married in a house of worship, are you starting arguments with me, are you even bringing the subject up when it’s not warranted? I think we could have honest conversations about it, but I would rather not. It could get crazy and then I would hate you. Making children might arouse the urge to strengthen one’s faith, so it’s a risk. It’s the degree of enthusiasm for a topic I care not to discuss or strongly disagree with you – I don’t want to promise my troth to an instigator, where I let things just be. This friction could be caused by many other subjects than religion, for instance politics, or it could take the form of another atheist who never talks about anything else. It is the similar way with the couple above – would I ask my future spouse to water down his faith and just be? After I supported him and tolerated his journey which I full-on believe to be the stupid way to go. No.
The key phrase in her question was “middle ground”. Since she is already far gone asking Pat Robertson’s advice on the matter, I don’t think he had another way to answer, and that speaks to the atheist in me that she’s not going to be the one to compromise. She’s not going to keep quiet, she is going to be upset about his soul and concerned for the souls of her children who might be exposed to the atheism in the household. I think she knows it too, if she has taken this journey aside an atheist and he didn’t receive the message, for whatever reasonable reasons he has for being an atheist, he’s not crossing the line. He might put up with her, I don’t know how and I think that depends on a lot of other compatibility factors he considers more important than what religion she is or what god his children end up believing in, with or without his input – he may relegate that privilege to his wife. Without a biblical rationale, he may be every bit as similar to her except the one thing.
Part of me thinks believing in god isn’t just different, it’s stupid. So if I were to marry a theist, it could mean little in the grand scheme of things that they weren’t as smart about one thing than I was. If my latent atheism in the relationship doesn’t bother them, and their latent belief in god wouldn’t bother me, it’s ok, as long as there was compatibility otherwise.
Here’s my response from my perspective to a couple things here:
First: If you’re ever fully honest with a potential spouse about his believing in God, that is, if you fully disclose to him that you think it’s “stupid,” and if you continue to frame it in terms of intelligence (i.e., smartness), I would venture to say that he may not respond very well. Even if you’re right about it being an issue of stupidity and/or intelligence, I don’t think your potential spouse will respond well to you saying so, and frankly, if you’re going to commit to marrying the person, I think you should both be responsible for full disclosure about something like this prior to the commitment.
Second, I do think you’re right in terms of it not bothering each other. But, I would be skeptical that a committed atheist and a committed atheist would not be bothered by each other in the context of an intimate, life-long commitment. Hell, a lot of the time we can’t even get along on anonymous blogs on the internet, right? In short, I respect the optimism, and I would hope that someday our society could get to that point – but when it comes to marriage, I guess I’m a bit more skeptical.
The key phrase in her question was “middle ground”. Since she is already far gone asking Pat Robertson’s advice on the matter, I don’t think he had another way to answer, and that speaks to the atheist in me that she’s not going to be the one to compromise. She’s not going to keep quiet, she is going to be upset about his soul and concerned for the souls of her children who might be exposed to the atheism in the household. I think she knows it too, if she has taken this journey aside an atheist and he didn’t receive the message, for whatever reasonable reasons he has for being an atheist, he’s not crossing the line. He might put up with her, I don’t know how and I think that depends on a lot of other compatibility factors he considers more important than what religion she is or what god his children end up believing in, with or without his input – he may relegate that privilege to his wife. Without a biblical rationale, he may be every bit as similar to her except the one thing
Now I’m totally confused. When I first began reading your post, I thought you were arguing that it could be possible. But here, you’re saying that it’s not possible. Am I reading you incorrectly?
As for being “stupid” for believing in god: Maybe the word is too harsh, but it’s along the same lines for me (and possibly only me?) as marrying someone who isn’t as handy around the house as I am, or marrying someone who is more patient than I am. I don’t not believe in god to such a significant degree that I fail to accept someone with what I’d consider a minor flaw. I probably would have already had the conversation with them and passed or failed if I used the word “stupid” to describe their belief. I think just using the sentence “I’m an atheist” would give them possibly some indication what I mean by that in no uncertain terms is that I think it’s stupid to believe in god. Well, I can’t make a good cup of coffee to save my life, so we’re even. That’s about the degree I feel it matters. If the theist happens to be put off by the news that I don’t share his beliefs, then his theism is already too strong for me and likely to set off arguments, and probably for the best we part.
I’m saying that I doubt I have to use the word directly, that it’s implied, and if they’ll still have me, even though I don’t share their belief in god (along with the mutual assessment that the other is a little stupider about one thing than oneself), then it might work out if we’re otherwise compatible.
It’s the degree to which each party can tolerate a strong difference in the other. If Christianity is the most important thing, and atheism is the most important thing, it’s probably going to cause a lot more damage to the relationship. I could suppose two people with differing viewpoints on the subject LOVE to debate it nightly, and see their relationship as a strong one outside of the philosophical disagreement. In my case, I don’t really want to talk about it and I don’t want to hear it. I’m not going to try to make a Christian an atheist, and constantly hound them about how foolish they are and such, but since being an atheist is part of who I am, and a normally quiet part at that, I’ll appreciate it when they keep that a quiet part of themselves, or be an otherwise secular being. Plenty of people have a belief in god without it leaking out all over.
“I’m not going to try to make a Christian an atheist, and constantly hound them about how foolish they are and such, but since being an atheist is part of who I am, and a normally quiet part at that, I’ll appreciate it when they keep that a quiet part of themselves, or be an otherwise secular being. Plenty of people have a belief in god without it leaking out all over.”
I meant inside a committed relationship, such as marriage. On a forum such as this, I’m not objecting to the open expression of atheists and theists. As I’d said, I don’t normally discuss or even think about these things. Say in the workplace, most everyone was Christian (or another religion) except me, to the degree that it was a common conversation topic aside from the work that we do, I probably wouldn’t find it an altogether pleasant place to work. If religions just didn’t come up that much, it would be different.
That makes sense, Kodie.
You think it’s more difficult the marriage of a theist and an atheist than that of a two different religions? And what happen with a democrat marrying a republican?
I mean, come on, there would be thinks we have to speak, and maybe we will never come to a meeting point, but consensus is possible. Can you argue that your kids know both, living with a god and without him, and then decide by themselves? A “mild” religious school, or a not religious school are both suitable, as our kids will ask me too why I don’t believe, and you can go with them to the church for the preceptive indoctrination.
Do you want to go to church? I’ll be at home til you comes back.
Ok, it won’t be always easy, but if we both respect each other…
Of course, I’m thinking about a “reasonable” theist here, I don’t think the marriage with a fundie is even possible (because of both sides)
You think it’s more difficult the marriage of a theist and an atheist than that of a two different religions? And what happen with a democrat marrying a republican?
I didn’t say anything about people of different religions marrying, but now that you mention it, that’s very difficult as well. Obviously, it depends on the two people involved, but it may be easier for two people of different religions to marry, because they would share a lot of common assumptions about the universe and human life. In other words, they would have more in common.
Politics, while still intensely personal for a lot of people, don’t hit as close to home as religion and atheism tend to do.
Ok, it won’t be always easy, but if we both respect each other…
I’d welcome that as quickly as you would, and hopefully it’s something we’re all working toward in our own lives.
Of course, I’m thinking about a “reasonable” theist here …
Isn’t the point of this blog that there is no such thing?
“Isn’t the point of this blog that there is no such thing?”
lol, that’s why I put the brackets, of course.
By “reasonable” I don’t mean the beliefs but the person’s attitude, as opposite to “fundie”.
In my opinion, if she don’t state that the Bible is unerrant, that the bible proofs rationally the existence of Abrahamic god and she can understand my position -I’m not a satanist- she would be “reasonable”.
On the other hand, I will acknowledge that I can’t disprove “God” and that they are lots of things that I don’t know -and probably will never know- about our universe; and I won’t consider her “stupid” for believing -well, sometimes when we are arguing about it I could say that I think she is a xx-religious because of culture and indoctrination, but not usually. Anyway, if I would consider her stupid I won’t marry her in the first place.
I can have a church marriage if it’s really so important for her, but she will know than my vows aren’t stronger because I say them before her god. I won’t accept any restriction because “bible says so” but I will understand that some rituals or bannings are important for her and won’t ridiculize it, nor try to force her to forget them…
Well, more or less as I lived with my parents -catholics- when I had become atheist
Francesc, do you feel it is important to be “evangelistic” about your atheism?
(No ulterior motives here, just curious)
When I met my current husband, I was Pagan and he was a lapsed-Catholic-former-born-again. He was actually afraid that my religion might be ‘messing with dangerous things’ without knowing. Ha!
Took him a long time and making lots of friends among my friends to learn differently. We had a beautiful Wiccan wedding in our new back yard officiated by a friend, and she wrote his speaking parts such that they would fit his christianity. (Did the same at my child’s naming ceremony).
It can be done. IF your spouse can accept that you don’t agree. He was sure that since he’d been ‘saved,’ that guaranteed I’d go to heaven, too. He was deathly afraid of hell…that’s what held him to his religion.
Well, he’s agnostic now (my fault! LOL), and my atheistic paganism evolved into just atheism. I still work on him from time to time to stop his ‘hell fear’.
BUT when I was dating my 1st husband, I almost broke up w/him ’cause he joined Amway and annoyed all our friends! I’m serious! LOL
OMG! Amway!?!
I grew up in MI in the heart of Amway country. I got sucked into it for about 2-3 weeks while I was in college, although I didn’t know it was Amway (it was Quixtar or something — online equivalent), and I left as soon as I found out what it was.
Yeah, he got sucked in by a sister. That’s the same sister who also tried to convince us later that the end was near, and that all power would be gone (after the rapture, I suppose). They had a tract saying that if we sold our car, or a home with central air or whatever that we should ask a very low price. Cause, ya know, WE had the foreknowledge that those things would be useless soon, so it would be a sin to fleece the buyer. LOL At least Jim didn’t buy that.
Still, it was an ill advised marriage into a very catholic/somewhat fundamentalist family with 6 siblings. Where there were never divorces. Except one (an aunt). And that got brought up a lot. I like to think I’m the family shame now, and can’t even blame the divorce on the death of a child like good ol’ Uncle Dick could. Poor guy.
We had one child…every other sibling has at least 3! My son is grandchild # 27 of 29. Jim tried telling me that it was important for “good, hardworking ethical people” to make up for all the drains on society out there. Guess there was an unequal yoke there! LOL
…difference between husbands being that even though the new one (was) is christian, too, he doesn’t think he’s better than everyone else…
Wow, that sounds eerily familiar (the amway part).
I’m sorry the marriage didn’t work out.
IMHO it can work if both parties have a laissez-faire attitude about religion.
There are couples where religion is a non-issue – where one or both nominally believe a God, maybe even do in their minds, but don’t exactly demonstrate it strongly, i.e., don’t go to church, don’t proselytize, don’t try to evangelize, etc.
But if both are strong about their position and, as someone mentioned above, unwilling to yield enough to manage to coexist… well… I don’t think that would work any more than Kodie’s extreme camping husband and she would work.
I think I could work well with a person of any faith if s/he did not try to convert me all the time. I don’t mind religious people at all, even strongly religious people, as long as they accept me as who I am and don’t think they’ve a right to dictate other people’s beliefs for them. There’s also the matter of bigotry, but that’s less about religion and more about people.
But if both are strong about their position and, as someone mentioned above, unwilling to yield enough to manage to coexist… well… I don’t think that would work any more than Kodie’s extreme camping husband and she would work.
As a married person, I know there are a whole host of things that you have to yield on for the sake of the marriage. From my experience: I don’t know many atheists or Christians who are willing to yield on this particular issue in the context of an intimate relationship. Frankly, it’s hard enough for us to “yield” collectively as a society, let alone as two people under the same roof sharing a life. And I don’t mean that as a put-down to either side, just as observation of the people I’ve known in my own life and as a member of our society.
I’ll give you an example – my parents and extended family. I was raised an atheist pretty much as a result of my mother’s fear of her own father, or lack of financial support, shall we say, and my father’s substandard income. The first time I went to church was when some of my cousins were getting baptized, and I think the next time was another cousin’s first communion (we are the same age). It was all mumbo-jumbo from the start. I made jokes later out of some of the words, not even relating them to someone else’s sincere belief. I knew some kids at school were going to CCD, and I asked my mother one time why I couldn’t go, and she said because we’re not Catholic. I just wanted to attend popular after-school programs like my schoolmates, I didn’t know what it was.
My maternal grandfather was a vocal atheist, and even though we all celebrated Christmas and Easter, other than some of my cousins being Christian, nobody talked about Jesus or any religious significance. The next time I had a conversation about it, I was on the phone with a boy from school (I may have been about 15), and he asked me what religion I am and I said I didn’t know. I didn’t know that I was in fact an atheist at the time since it had never come up, and I never asked myself what I really thought about it. The boy told me we usually believe what our parents believe, so my dad was at the kitchen table and I said hang on, let me ask my dad. My dad says, “I believe in god, but not organized religion.” My father is also known for calling the Sunday traffic jams in the town center “the magic show is getting out.” So anyway, that’s the first time I’d heard my father speak of god and the last time.
Since my grandfather died, my mother has expressed regret at not raising us with Jesus, as she thinks we’d all have had an easier time handling a lot of hard times (and that’s the only reason she has stated). I’m not sure how deep her faith goes, as she never talks about it either. It is only recently that I’ve even found out when my grandfather, who had been raised in a large and strict Catholic family, became an atheist, later in his life after his children were born (although he had only two), not in his teens or early twenties like I had imagined. My grandmother must also believe in Jesus because a cross was placed on my grandfather’s coffin, which annoyed me a lot at the time, but it wasn’t the time to say. However, she has never talked about it.
My paternal grandparents also never talked about Jesus except that one time (age 8 or so?) my other grandfather made us hold hands and pray at the table, but as I recall, it was a vague prayer of peace and thankfulness and family togetherness, possibly Jesus was invoked a little, and it never happened again any other time we ate together. It may have been because it was Easter, but the rest of my memories are of the bunnies and dyed egg sort.
I really don’t think it’s that difficult to imagine getting along with people like that inside of a marriage.
I really don’t think it’s that difficult to imagine getting along with people like that inside of a marriage.
So, let’s assume for the sake of discussion that you marry a religious person who goes to church regularly. And you welcome him home from church with the words, “How was the magic show?” Because that is how you admittedly feel about it.
What do you think the response would be?
I don’t mean to downplay the story about your mother, and I do appreciate your honesty. But, if you think of church as a “magic show” and are “annoyed” by a cross being placed on a coffin, how would you expect to be married to someone who values those things highly?
I don’t think I expressed any expectation of being married to someone who values those things highly. Since I can probably list off to you the +/- 10 times I’ve ever been to church in my whole life if I think about it, I can’t imagine being with someone who attended regularly or needed to be married there.
As I went through explaining, it wasn’t a big deal in my house, nor the houses of anyone in my family that we visited often. If we visited aunts and uncles and cousins on a Sunday, for all I know they went to church and came home already or didn’t. It wasn’t a factor for the rest of the day. None of my grandparents attended and my mother who maybe two times thought she made a mistake not bringing us to church – and only ever said so after her father was dead – does not go to church or regularly hang out with anyone who does on the basis of their religion. My grandmother who put a cross on her dead atheist husband’s casket does not go to church. I’ve never seen anyone in my family pray, ever, unless it was to go along with something during a church service, which, as you may be aware, there’s no atheistic necessity to adhere to commandments about taking the lord’s name in vain or bearing false witness, etc. Weddings are the only time we attend church since we’re grown, and 3 cousins baptized at once means we didn’t have to do that 3 separate times.
I was annoyed at the cross because I know my grandfather would be annoyed. Now when I think about it, he’s dead and incapable of being annoyed, so whatever. My sister got married in a Catholic church last year, and I had a part to play and that line included the word god (it was, in religious terms, an affirmation of witness, which I had already signed to the state of NY before the processional). So, I was like, should I assert my beliefs or should I realize within myself the word has no power, so I said it (see note about commandments above). I don’t know if my sister is a Catholic as a result of the counseling, but I suspect in more broad terms, she is inclined to be influenced by my mother’s train of thought on the subject, and in turn my mother may speak to her more thoroughly about it, or believe anything, really not consider it deeply. A possible conversion commitment due to marriage proposal.
My brother is also married to a Catholic, I’m pretty sure he’s an atheist, and his wife isn’t devout. I don’t know what their lives and marriages are like, how their children are being raised, etc. as we’re not close, and they live on the other side of the country. Good enough for me. In the same position, I would probably resist the church wedding for myself, it’s a little farther than I want to budge.
It’s possible at least on the face of it to believe in god like you believe you’re going to win the lottery someday, and not have to commit spiritually with great consideration and practice any habits faithfully or express any other thoughts on the subject. I can say once, I’m an atheist, if they ask what I am or believe, and if they have more questions, I would try to answer them. If they have no more questions, it will hardly ever come up. If they never ask, then it won’t come up, and I can only assume their faith is limited to the “I believe in god, but not organized religion” sort, who may or may not also believe they’re going to win the lottery someday. If it’s much more than that and they express it at some time, I’d consider that a question which I would have to answer “I’m an atheist.” If they’re response to that is that’s too bad, than that’s ok with me that we aren’t going to be together.
http://dr.gonzo456.mybrute.com
I disagree with Pat Robertson (for many, many reasons) but one is that the Bible says that it is ok to marry a non-believer, that the believer will save the soul of the non-believer through marriage. Not that the fiance needs to be saved or anything, but Pat Robertson’s bible is off. This is from one of the letters of Paul, I want to say Romans . . . . I get them all confused.
First Corinthians 7:
12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches
Actually, you’re wrong about this passage. It doesn’t say that believers should pursue relationships with unbelievers. It actually says that if you are currently married to an unbeliever that you shouldn’t leave the marriage. In other words, the passage is directed to people who are already in relationships, not to people who are pursuing them.
Why is it such a sin to LEAVE marriage? As evident by the passage you posted (and I’m sure others) there are examples in the bible where there is a clear problem/disconnect/implication of deception between married couples but yet they are ordered to remain together?
If you find out 3 years into a marriage that your spouse is not the person you thought you married…why wouldn’t god want you to get a fresh start and live a happier life?
Well, I’m not a fundamentalist, so don’t take my response as a response from that perspective.
When Scripture does reference divorce, it doesn’t directly address the concept of a “loveless marriage.” The passages we do have, especially in the NT, address very specific, concrete situations and not just marriage in general. For example, Jesus was speaking to a highly patriarchal society, in which a woman had almost no civil right to divorce a man. However, men could dismiss their wives quite easily. So, when Jesus says “Don’t divorce except for unfaithfulness,” that statement should be read with that specific context in mind. Thus, Jesus’ statement here is meant to correct the patriarchy, not necessarily to establish a general rule for every situation.
Paul’s statement, as I quoted above, addresses another very concrete situations: marriages in which one person is a believer and the other is not. From Paul’s perspective, there is a soteriological issue at stake — namely, that the unbelieving spouse be redeemed through the love of the believing spouse; hence, don’t divorce the unbelieving spouse. On the flip side, the believing spouse doesn’t need to feel guilty if they cannot reconcile living with each other because of their differences in faith.
In other places, Paul also sets out some very strict guidelines which appear to be incredibly general, sweeping statements in which he prohibits divorce except for on the grounds of infidelity. I would argue, however, that those statements should again be read in context, and that context would assume that people who entered into marriage did so knowing full-well who the other person is.
My personal opinion is this: Scripture, especially the NT, paints a pretty clear picture, namely, that marriage vows should be taken very seriously. Thus, when you promise, “Until death do us part,” that you actually mean what you are saying; consequently, divorce should be the very last option. I do think there are exceptions to this general rule; however, I don’t think divorce is something someone should consider before 1) marriage counseling and 2) very serious thought in conversation with trusted friends, family, and guidance.
Well, we now see marriage as to persons who are in love, so when (if) that love disappears, there is no need to be strongly bounded but those vows. Now a woman can live by herself; a woman doesn’t need a man to feed and protect her. Virginity is not anymore part of the value of the woman as a person, she can find another husband as the husband can find another wife.
And marriage is not anymore a contract between a man and his wiffe’s family (well, it is in some countries), but between two persons.
Now let’s go back to a society where the woman is few more than his husband’s (and his father’s before) property. In an economy of subsistence. When having a a lot of kids -because most of them died- was necessary to assure your future. Where land property was attached to the male, and often to the oldest son -in order not to split properties… We will see that a woman who divorced -or was divorced- would have a very difficult life and, probably (if she was not young enough) couldn’t marry again. What with the son’s? If they are too young the husband couldn’t raise him properly, the wife couldn’t feed him and, anyway, son’s where also property of the man.
Hence, some rules like those about divorce, or that a man should marry his sister-in-law if his brother died.
It’s a matter of survival and it has his benefits for the tribe. (Am I getting to darwinian here?)
It’s a matter of survival and it has his benefits for the tribe. (Am I getting to darwinian here?
No, but I don’t think I understand your arguing.
Well, we now see marriage as to persons who are in love, so when (if) that love disappears, there is no need to be strongly bounded but those vows.
If love is nothing more than a fleeting emotion that comes and goes on its own volition, then perhaps you have a point. But, if there is more to love than that, i.e., if love is more than a feeling but also a conscious commitment and a moment-by-moment choice, then may perhaps it’s not that simple.
Furthermore, if you don’t mean “Until death do us part,” then don’t say it. If what you mean is, “I’m going to love you until I don’t love you anymore,” then that’s what you should say. Obviously, you lose some romance, but you would gain a helluva lot of honesty.
I’m explaining the bible as a book of laws developed into tabu things -> God’s will by the benefit of the tribe. And pointing to the differences of our society and the society of that moment, referring to marriage and divorce.
Indeed, I won’t say “Until death do us part”. But I don’t think either that “love is nothing more than a fleeting emotion that comes and goes on its own volition”. I do think that love can grew.
I will say “I love you” and imply that I will do a great effort for our love to develop as our relationship -and our lives- does. But I can’t certificate that I will love my partner “forever”. It’s not a contract anymore.
I forgot to mention: the passage I posted is anything but an “order.” Paul clearly says, this is my opinion, not the opinion of the “Lord.” For some, that qualification doesn’t matter. To me, it does. This is his advice. It’s his informed advice as an apostle, and so Christians take it seriously, but it’s still advice, a general rule and NOT and order.
Interesting, thanks for the response.
No problem. I’m happy to talk about matters of faith/doubt/skepticism/belief anytime.