Religious Boyfriend

pwurple

There's a halfway point for children though. Catholic-Athiest, or the more general christian-athiest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

You follow the traditions (easter eggs, christmas, lent), general teachings (be good to others, don't steal etc), use some of the services (funerals, weddings) but don't believe in god, or jesus as the son of god.... more of a prophet/teacher with useful parables.

Sort of a middle-ground.

rozeboosje

MrPudding wrote: »

from what you have said. You have said [...]

... very little. I have only told you where *I* had to compromise, as this relates to the OP. My wife, of course, had to compromise as well, but this is outside the remit of this conversation.

Suffice to say that my position is not actually being ignored in this relationship, nor is it in any way hidden or disguised from our child. As Czarcasm has quite rightly pointed out: I trust that my child will grow up as the sort of sensible adult who can make up her own mind when she reaches the appropriate level of maturity. And my wife accepts that the decisions my child will make later in life with regard to "faith" may be disappointing to her.

Buona Fortuna

Czarcasm wrote: »

OP my wife is Atheist and I'm Roman Catholic. 17, nearly 18 years later, we've had to deal with bigger issues than just religion!

Honestly, you're not marrying the guy and you're only going out a while. Enjoy the positives in your relationship and they will by far exceed any perceived negatives.

Same here. My wife is wishy washy RC, I'm wishy washy atheist. We married in Catholic church, and attended pre-marriage b0llox classes - 28 years ago.

Of all the arguments that we have and have had - never about religion.

MrPudding

rozeboosje wrote: »

... very little. I have only told you where *I* had to compromise, as this relates to the OP. My wife, of course, had to compromise as well, but this is outside the remit of this conversation.

Yes, and I am sure you wife's compromises where eon a similar scale to how you child would be raised.

The point is, simply saying that one just needs to compromise isn't actually that helpful to the OP. Neither she, nor her boyfriend, may be willing to compromise. They may both feel strongly about how any children they may have are brought up. That you were willing to accede to your wife's wishes on how you child was raised is obviously good for your relationship, but can't really be used as a method for everyone. If the problem is 'my wife and I fundamentally disagree with how our child should be raised' then the answer isn't really 'well, one of you should simply forget about your beliefs and allow the child to be raised how the other one wants.' That only really work when, as Buono, says above, the beliefs are 'wishy washy'. Even then, it can still be a problem for the non-religious person. The religious person might be a bit wish-washy in their beliefs, you know, like the majority of catholics in Ireland, but might still insist that children are raised catholic.

My point is 'accede to your partners wishes' isn't really a solution to the OP.

MrP

Brown Bomber

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

There are people who think that even the act of not believing in the risen lord Jebus is oppressing those who do and forcing them to give up the same belief. It is a function of the insecurity they have in their belief, in that they know that the evidence and reason for such belief is lacking, but don't have the mental fortitude to give it up. Thus they lash out at others, partly in envy at their lack of belief, and partly in anger that they show belief is not necessary.

It's a little rude to proffer ham-fisted psycho-analysitions in the third person, I think. Especially as you couldn't be more wrong. The reason Lisa is being intolerant is that she is forming conclusions on a person based on not what they actually have done or said but what she assumes they have done based on her prejudices against the "other".

intolerant
[in-tol-er-uh nt]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

adjective
1.
not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.

prejudice
[prej-uh-dis]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

JuliusCaesar

rozeboosje wrote: »

I love the phrase "to lack belief". Let's use that word, "lack", in a few English sentences, shall we:

1. The villagers lack a source of clean drinking water.
2. The region lacks adequate education facilities.
3. We would like to improve our infrastructure but we lack the funds.

I think the phrase "I lack belief" is the most delicious Freudian slip the Atheist community has come up with yet. It always makes me giggle when I see it. Everybody who uses it is effectively saying "I consider myself deficient".

I am deficient in believing in God.

Strangely, I don't regard this as a deficit, but others might. Other people also consider my attitude to aromatherapy or homeopathy deficient too.


.

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

My point is 'accede to your partners wishes' isn't really a solution to the OP.

It isn't a solution to the OP because the OP's partner hasn't expressed any wishes to which the OP could accede.

Even if it were a solution to the OP, it isn't a solution which rozeboosje has at any point advocated, that I can see.

nozzferrahhtoo

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I am deficient in believing in God.

Strangely, I don't regard this as a deficit, but others might. Other people also consider my attitude to aromatherapy or homeopathy deficient too.

Yeah "lack" also means an absence of. I think Roze is just focusing on one possible definition of the word, and acting like this means we have made some kind of slip whenever we use it.

Tounge in cheek though lack can also mean something desired is missing. Which is not a "slip" because it is missing from us, and many theists desire there it be there in us :-)

As Hitchens used to say "This belief does not make many of them happy. They seemingly can not be happy until I believe it TOO".

rozeboosje

MrPudding wrote: »

Neither she, nor her boyfriend, may be willing to compromise.

[...]

My point is 'accede to your partners wishes' isn't really a solution to the OP.

Good point. If either partner is not willing to give an inch, the venture is doomed. It doesn't even matter if the other partner is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate the other's intransigence; you can only deny yourself for so long before resentment builds and the whole thing goes horribly toxic. So I agree, in that circumstance there is no point in going on. But don't assume from the start that that's how it's going to be. Talk about it, and find out. Then decide.

Lingua Franca

I've personally never dated someone who practiced a religion, as it's something I would find unattractive. But if it's not directly affecting you and you're not too bothered by it, you should be able to live with it

Sarz91 wrote: »

I've plenty of friends who are deeply (and I mean deeply, as in going on retreats and going to church* for an entire Sunday) religious but they don't judge me and I don't judge them.

Not relevant to the OP but there's one of my group of friends who is deeply religious in the manner described, and the novenas and trips to Lourdes, Medjugorje etc, and she admitted to us recently that she does judge us. Harshly. She thinks that's ok because she's just being a kind Christian and she prays for us and our mental health issues. :rolleyes: I'm done with her.

rozeboosje

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I am deficient in believing in God.

Strangely, I don't regard this as a deficit, but others might. Other people also consider my attitude to aromatherapy or homeopathy deficient too.

.

That's the point I'm making, though admittedly I'm doing it in a way that I know will wind up those who like to get hot around the collar about such things. I would never use the word "lack" to explain to someone that I don't share their beliefs. It sounds too much like one is "missing" something important in one's life. I don't believe in "god" things, whatever they are. But I'm lacking nothing.

Tasden

rozeboosje wrote: »

I love the phrase "to lack belief". Let's use that word, "lack", in a few English sentences, shall we:

1. The villagers lack a source of clean drinking water.
2. The region lacks adequate education facilities.
3. We would like to improve our infrastructure but we lack the funds.

I think the phrase "I lack belief" is the most delicious Freudian slip the Atheist community has come up with yet. It always makes me giggle when I see it. Everybody who uses it is effectively saying "I consider myself deficient".

I lack the ability to fly
Yup- deficient. Along with everybody else in the world

rozeboosje

You lack the ability to fly. I just can't fly. Subtle difference there :-)

Tasden

rozeboosje wrote: »

You lack the ability to fly. I just can't fly. Subtle difference there :-)

No difference apart from you saying it a different way to try suit whatever your argument is.
Why cant you fly? Do you have the ability to do so? No. Therefore you lack the ability to. Whether you choose to say the word "lack" doesn't really matter, same thing in the end. But by all means feel free to relish the term being used! I personally "lack" the same enthusiasm :pac:

rozeboosje

Tasden wrote: »

I personally "lack" the same enthusiasm :pac:

You express a feeling of inadequacy about many things. I stopped beating myself up over my physical and mental limitations a long time ago.

Dades

rozeboosje wrote: »

I love the phrase "to lack belief". Let's use that word, "lack", in a few English sentences, shall we:

1. The villagers lack a source of clean drinking water.
2. The region lacks adequate education facilities.
3. We would like to improve our infrastructure but we lack the funds.

I think the phrase "I lack belief" is the most delicious Freudian slip the Atheist community has come up with yet. It always makes me giggle when I see it. Everybody who uses it is effectively saying "I consider myself deficient".

There is no response this post is worthy of, except this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9JDPm_QHk4

Those familiar with the context of that conversation will appreciate it more.

Beano

pwurple wrote: »

There's a halfway point for children though. Catholic-Athiest, or the more general christian-athiest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

You follow the traditions (easter eggs, christmas, lent), general teachings (be good to others, don't steal etc), use some of the services (funerals, weddings) but don't believe in god, or jesus as the son of god.... more of a prophet/teacher with useful parables.

Sort of a middle-ground.

isnt that more of a hypocrite than anything else?

rozeboosje

We are amused.

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The reason Lisa is being intolerant is that she is forming conclusions on a person based on not what they actually have done or said but what she assumes they have done based on her prejudices against the "other".

Can you quote for us the conclusions she has come to?

I can only find these ones:

xLisaBx wrote: »

I really like him

xLisaBx wrote: »

He's pretty religious.

xLisaBx wrote: »

I have no problem accepting his beliefs as I like him as a whole person

I urge you not to continue with this line unless you have something to back it up.

rozeboosje

Very appropriate snippet, there, Dades.

[smiles benevolently]

Dades

I may have watched the Toy Story boxset too much.

Zubeneschamali

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Of all the arguments that we have and have had - never about religion.

Same here. Things for the OP to consider:

Lots of atheists here have ended up marrying Catholics and having kids, and have had no religion-related problems in their marriage. That's way beyond where your current relationship will probably go, so don't worry about it.

Secondly, if you refuse to have relationships with religious people, you've eliminated most of your options.

And frankly, I'd rather be married to a laid-back catholic than to a crusading atheist. A laid back atheist would be better still, and a crusading Christian the worst, but I'll take flexible every time.

Beano

Dades wrote: »

Can you quote for us the conclusions she has come to?

I can only find these ones:


I urge you not to continue with this line unless you have something to back it up.

well she did say

I dunno does he judge a little deep inside though

nozzferrahhtoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's a little rude to proffer ham-fisted psycho-analysitions in the third person, I think. Especially as you couldn't be more wrong. The reason Lisa is being intolerant is that she is forming conclusions on a person based on not what they actually have done or said but what she assumes they have done based on her prejudices against the "other".

And once again I have to repeat my question, which you have consistently dodged thus far including simply ignoring my entire last post on the matter, as to what exactly she has been saying that makes you reach the conclusions you are listing. It is, after all, a little rude to proffer ham-fisted psycho-analysis based on twisting someones words.

I have read every post on her thread, several times now, and all I am seeing is a person who recognizes differences between her and her new partner, and is seeking people who have had similar experiences of this particular difference.

What is intolerant in that? Where has she "formed conclusions"? Where is this "paranoia" you referred to? Where is her "prejudice"? You appear to simply be making ALL of this up for some reasons of your own that are entirely opaque to me in every way.

Posting dictionary definitions of words into a thread does not magically make those words apply to the thread, let alone the OP of it.

Brown Bomber

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And once again I have to repeat my question, which you have consistently dodged thus far including simply ignoring my entire last post on the matter, as to what exactly she has been saying that makes you reach the conclusions you are listing. It is, after all, a little rude to proffer ham-fisted psycho-analysis based on twisting someones words.

I have read every post on her thread, several times now, and all I am seeing is a person who recognizes differences between her and her new partner, and is seeking people who have had similar experiences of this particular difference.

What is intolerant in that? Where has she "formed conclusions"? Where is this "paranoia" you referred to? Where is her "prejudice"? You appear to simply be making ALL of this up for some reasons of your own that are entirely opaque to me in every way.

Posting dictionary definitions of words into a thread does not magically make those words apply to the thread, let alone the OP of it.

OK, well apparently you missed her irrational and completely unsubstantiated thoughts on whether he was secretly judging her BECAUSE he was "religious" on some undefined level.

This is by definition prejudice.

Brown Bomber

Dades wrote: »

Can you quote for us the conclusions she has come to?

I can only find these ones:


I urge you not to continue with this line unless you have something to back it up.

The fact that she believes that her boyfriend is judging her based solely on the fact that he has some religious beliefs that she isn't sure of.

Cabaal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, well apparently you missed her irrational and completely unsubstantiated thoughts on whether he was secretly judging her BECAUSE he was "religious" on some undefined level.

This is by definition prejudice.

Isn't original sin prejudice?

It unfairly labels the entire human race as sinful, without providing any evidence to show that a person has committed a sin

Brown Bomber

Cabaal wrote: »

Catholic church teaches that everyone as sinful from the very start, isn't that prejudice?

They've already labeled the entire human race as sinful but yet they know nothing about the entire human race,

and?

Mr. CooL ICE

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The fact that she believes that her boyfriend is judging her based solely on the fact that he has some religious beliefs that she isn't sure of.

Or maybe she is 18 and is simply asking a question because she doesn't know the answer.

Beano

Cabaal wrote: »

Isn't original sin prejudice?

It unfairly labels the entire human race as sinful, without providing any evidence to show that a person has committed a sin

she has shown a specific prejudice. She has specifically said that she thinks he is judging her. That has nothing to do with original sin.

Lingua Franca

Beano wrote: »

she has shown a specific prejudice. She has specifically said that she thinks he is judging her. That has nothing to do with original sin.

No she didn't. She asked if he might be.

Edit: and since the Christian concept of original sin is pre-judging all people as sinners, that's perfectly valid.

Beano

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Or maybe she is 18 and is simply asking a question because she doesn't know the answer.

she hasnt asked a question she has made an assumption. she did not say "do you think he might be judging me".

Lingua Franca

She did not say "I think he is judging me", as you claimed she so specifically did, either.

I dunno does he judge a little deep inside though

Beano

Lingua Franca wrote: »

She did not say "I think he is judging me", as you claimed she so specifically did, either.

why wouid she even think in that direction unless she thought there was some truth in it?

Brown Bomber

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Or maybe she is 18 and is simply asking a question because she doesn't know the answer.

Granted, but she is asking the question based on her prejudices against her boyfriend BECAUSE he has some undetermined religious. Just because a prejudice is the majority view doesn't make it any less prejudicial. I'm starting to feel like the kid who pointed out the emperor has no clothes.

Mr. CooL ICE

Beano wrote: »

she hasnt asked a question she has made an assumption. she did not say "do you think he might be judging me".

Well, if you're gonna be pedantic about, then her statement isn't grammatically perfect and therefore can be perceived as either a question, a statement or otherwise.

xLisaBx wrote: »

I dunno does he judge a little deep inside though

Reads to me like it's a thought that crossed her mind and she typed out loud. She doesn't sound prejudiced to me.

Beano

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Well, if you're gonna be pedantic about, then her statement isn't grammatically perfect and therefore can be perceived as either a question, a statement or otherwise.

Reads to me like it's a thought that crossed her mind and she typed out loud. She doesn't sound prejudiced to me.

its as clear as day to me.

Lingua Franca

Beano wrote: »

why wouid she even think in that direction unless she thought there was some truth in it?

Because she is 18 years old and wondering if people with conflicting ideologies can work it out.

She was only asking for advice. Why is it so important to you that you make her out to be an intolerant bigot?

Brown Bomber

Beano wrote: »

why wouid she even think in that direction unless she thought there was some truth in it?

Exactly, the difference, if at all is of degree not of kind.

Beano

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Because she is 18 years old and wondering if people with conflicting ideologies can work it out.

She was only asking for advice. Why is it so important to you that you make her out to be an intolerant bigot?

where have i called her an intolerant bigot?

Lingua Franca

Beano wrote: »

where have i called her an intolerant bigot?

I said "make her out to be". But I'm sure you'll claim I specifically said otherwise despite the words being there in black and white.

The tone at the start of this thread was gentle and caring and loving on her part, and understanding on the part of the respondents.

Congratulations on your part in this thread. I'm sure she'll cherish your advice.

Beano

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I said "make her out to be". But I'm sure you'll claim I specifically said otherwise despite the words being there in black and white.

The tone at the start of this thread was gentle and caring and loving on her part, and understanding on the part of the respondents.

Ok then where have i made her out to be an intolerant bigot? Those words werent even mentioned in this thread until you started posting

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Congratulations on your part in this thread. I'm sure she'll cherish your advice.

I havent given her any advice.

rozeboosje

Well, we can try and be kind to OP and how she chose to ask the question. We all know that *some* religious people *do* judge non-believers. You only need to look at the Westboros to see an extreme example of that. So I can understand that she may be worried that he *might* be judging her.

What is a bit odd is that she chose to ask a bunch of perfect strangers on a web site to answer that question when the only person who could possibly answer it is her boyfriend himself.

Mr. CooL ICE

Beano wrote: »

Ok then where have i made her out to be an intolerant bigot? Those words werent even mentioned in this thread until you started posting

When you jumped to the conclusion that she was prejudiced based on a vague sentence

Beano

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

When you jumped to the conclusion that she was prejudiced based on a vague sentence

i think it is quite a leap from prejudiced to intolerant bigot.

Lingua Franca

Beano wrote: »

Ok then where have i made her out to be an intolerant bigot? Those words werent even mentioned in this thread until you started posting

Here, when you were supporting a post calling her intolerant.

Oh, and here, where you called her prejudiced.

I havent given her any advice.

Precisely.

Beano

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Here, when you were supporting a post calling her intolerant.

Oh, and here, where you called her prejudiced.



Precisely.

so i havent used the word intolerant at all then?

robindch

Mod: The term "bigot" is rapidly becoming verboten in this forum as it causes much heat for very little light.

Please drop the term.

Brown Bomber

rozeboosje wrote: »

Well, we can try and be kind to OP and how she chose to ask the question. We all know that *some* religious people *do* judge non-believers. You only need to look at the Westboros to see an extreme example of that. So I can understand that she may be worried that he *might* be judging her.

What is a bit odd is that she chose to ask a bunch of perfect strangers on a web site to answer that question when the only person who could possibly answer it is her boyfriend himself.

I think I have been the only person to suggest talking to her boyfriend. I don't mean to be unkind, prejudice and intolerance are buzz words which mean different things to different people and the prejudice on display here is certainly on the milder end of the spectrum but it is prejudice nonetheless. So my advise to you Lisa is too take people as you find them and judge them on what they do and say and not what you believe they might think and say because they are "different" to you.

I'm not quite sure if it has hit home yet but you are troubled by him judging you based on nothing at all when it is you who is actually doing the judging in your relationship.

Lingua Franca

Noted, Robindch.

Beano wrote: »

so i havent used the word intolerant at all then?

I never said you did. But you joined an advice thread merely to support a post calling her that.

Anyway, this thread isn't about you or me and this conversation is way off topic.