Dating an Agnostic?

[ChemistQueen]

Hello all- first time posting here. Thanks in advance for the advice!

 

On to the question....

 

First the background:

 

I'm a practicing, rather progressive Catholic, who is happily dating a professed agnostic. We're both adults with college degrees and are both currently pursuing PhD's in chemistry. For the most part, we share everything but our religious beliefs, which we happily discuss and mull over and think about. Neither one of us is changing, neither one expects the other to change. We've been together 5 months. Things are getting rather serious. Marriage and kids have been brought up in discussion and there's no end in sight to the relationship.

 

Problem:

 

My family (very… very… VERY…. Conservative Catholic) is 100% in opposition to every aspect of our relationship. I'm currently under a lot of pressure to end things where they stand. Every time I visit my family it's a battle that leaves me reeling and frustrated. My mother is interpreting this as a personal attack on her, and she’s blaming herself for “the way I turned out”. I’ve been forbidden to tell any extended family members (grandpa, cousins, etc.) about our relationship because of the ruckus it would cause in the extended family as well. (Another cousin is marrying a Baptist and s*** is hitting the fan with that…. Not sure I want to know Grandpa’s reaction to an agnostic joining the family….)

 

I’m used to having a very close relationship with my family, especially my mother. When I was in undergrad, we shared everything. Now I’m being forced to keep a large part of my life under wraps for fear of inciting a fight and it’s tearing me apart inside. A close friend of mine advised me that there’s no way that this is going to end well. Either I’ll tear my family relationships to shreds by staying with this guy or I’ll break my heart (and bf’s) by ending things now, without any reason other than to satisfy my family.

 

What’s making this hard for me that that my family, extended family included, really only wants to see me happy and faithful. They’re of the opinion that, no matter how good the intentions, inter-faith marriages never work in the long run. At best, I’ll fall from the faith, join the heathen ranks of the bf, and I’ll take any children we’ve produced right along with me. At worst, I end up struggling along alone with heathen children due to divorce. They see no other possible endings to the story and they’re right, neither of those endings would leave me happy in the long run.

 

I, however, see the possibility for a very different ending. One in which bf and I raise several happy, well-adjusted, open-minded children. They’ll have their roots in the Catholic faith, which bf has already said he’s happy to support, even if it means weekly Masses, no meat on Fridays during lent, and religious artifacts in our home. They’ll have solid morals and values instilled in them by two educated parents who love them dearly. When they reach adulthood, they’ll have parents ready and willing to support them in whatever faith and career paths they choose.

 

Am I being too optimistic?

 

And in reality, the real question is, how do I maintain a relationship when I’m being met with nothing but vehement opposition from everyone at home?

 

Any insights, perhaps from others who’ve been in similar situations?

[Diamonds&Rust]

Am I being too optimistic?

Maybe. But you have every right to that optimism!

And in reality, the real question is, how do I maintain a relationship when I’m being met with nothing but vehement opposition from everyone at home?

I hope your friend isn't right about there being no good way out of this. Instead, it seems like your parents will have to respect your decision and behave appropriately towards you. They'll want to be grandparents and stuff, I'd hope.

Any insights, perhaps from others who’ve been in similar situations?

My family's Catholicism did sort of crumble away as people stopped practicing and married non-Catholics, but there's an important verse in the Catechism that I once turned to when thinking through moral dilemmas:

 

[1776] Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.

 

(...)

 

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law...

 

 

- Catechism of the Catholic Church

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Moral conscience

 

[TaraMaiden]

this makes me absolutely seethe. :mad: :mad:

 

I'm an ex-R.Catholic, and am so glad to be out of all of this....and out of respect for the OP, I will say no more.

 

But you will get hostility from non-religious atheists, because they may not be so backward in coming forward.

I just want to warn you about that.

 

And I feel it also fair to let you know that many people who have walked away from their Theistic upbringing, may descend on you - and by extension, your family - like the proverbial ton of bricks....

[wuggle]

I think as D&R says, your family will have to learn to accept your decision. Your bf sounds like he is prepared to make several adjustments so I think you have every right to expect that your family, who love you as well, make some concessions.

 

I don't think the problem you are experiencing is uncommon, at some stage in their lives most people when growing up have to confront the fact that they have different opinions, beliefs and ideals than their parents. It's often difficult, but if you capitulate now and merely accept that your parents world view has to be followed as your own you will be seriously stifling your own growth.

 

Your parents do not know everything, You may grow into a 'heathen' (or athiest as we call ourselves ), but that should be for you to decide not your parents.

 

If you don't face the fact that you are the guardian of your life now then you will just have to do it at some later stage, possibly after you have lost your bf.

 

Good luck, it's tough growing up. but worth it

Edited March 11, 2012 by wuggle
never learnt to spell and my wife keeps reminding me !

[TaraMaiden]

(that's 'atheist')....

[Eve]

OP, this is what I meditate on at key decision points. I suppose the final hope of ones faith becomes quite potent at such moments and this is my hope for the future and kind of gets me through times where I do not know the answer.

 

"This is the covenant that I will make with them

 

after those days, says the Lord:

 

I will put my laws on their hearts,

 

and write them on their minds,"

 

"I will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more."

 

Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. Hebrews 10:14-18

 

Experiences? Ok, both of my girls are in relationships with persons who are not from the faith but have good family values and are faithful people to the core.

 

It is my view that because my girls love them and they do no harm to others it is easy for me to accept them as they are.

 

They respect my daughters beliefs and are a joy to be around. Exceptionally well raised young people.

 

My children would be beyond upset if I did not accept their partners but equally understand that I would not accept a full bred heathen who hates religion into my home under any circumstances. Well, except if my home had to be used for a Hospital or something extreme like that - where the sustainance of life is the primary issue... to which obviously I would bow. I would be beyond upset if my children got involved with someone as such and would see that I had failed in raising them.

 

Your partner sounds fine to me and I would take issue with mum not having confidence in you and your choice of partner. Overall I would be concerned that the faith was being used as a social status thing rather than a faith thing. I have no experience with this other than through observation but would conclude that the emphasis would naturally fall upon you to uphold what you believe to be the just and right way to treat others, regardless of whether a family member is involved or not.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[wuggle]

.. equally understand that I would not accept a full bred heathen who hates religion into my home under any circumstances.

 

I on the other hand would not have a problem with a person of any religious views being in my house (as long as they were nice people), maybe that's because I'm just an intolerant heathen .

[Eve]

I on the other hand would not have a problem with a person of any religious views being in my house (as long as they were nice people), maybe that's because I'm just an intolerant heathen .

 

Really?

 

*Eve awaits the catchline*

 

.. but you can't find any to invite?

 

Take care,

Eve x

[KathyM]

Hopefully you want to hear from more than just people who agree with you or say what you want to hear. So I'll give you a perspective that I think, as a practicing Christian, you should take into account. It says in the Bible that we are not supposed to marry an unbeliever. We are not supposed to be unequally yoked. God has given us this directive because He knows that is what is best for marriages and for children. When people don't share a faith, their primary core value, it brings a disconnect to the marriage, and they can't share in their beliefs. Your children will see that your husband is practicing hypocrisy if he attends services with you and observes religious rituals and holidays with you, when in fact it is not genuine and is against his beliefs. Or if he disassociates himself from any religious practices, your children will also be confused in their faith because of the difference. I remember reading some statistics a few years ago about what percentage of children grow up to adopt the faith of their parents, and the statistics were not good for families where the parents practiced a different faith from each other. I don't remember the exact statistics, but it might have been 80% adopted their parent's faith if both were of the same faith. Less than 50% adopted it if one was a Christian and the other was some other faith or no faith. Much lower if neither were Christians. So your parents are rightfully concerned. They know it's important for a spouse to support their daughter's faith, to together raise their children in the faith in order to provide a good foundation for your children's values and belief system, and they know how much more difficult it is when a couple does not agree on this core value. I know a Christian woman who married a Jewish man who actually changed his faith for her in order to marry her. As soon as hard times came in the relationship, and they always do sooner or later, he rejected his new faith, and any faith, and started on a road of self destruction. For strong Christians, their faith carries them through these hard times. For people with no faith, they often succuum to them. Don't take this matter lightly, because it will be an issue you will have to deal with in your marriage.

[OpenBook]

If Jesus hadn't opened his doors to everybody, then all of us would be damned & doomed. Every last one of us.

 

I do concede, however, that it's harder to stay successfully married without a common spiritual foundation. Add to that the fact that in a lot of ways, when you get married you're also marrying your spouse's family, or at least inheriting them.

 

But the future is always in motion. You're just speculating at this point, with no plans to get married or even engaged to your BF.

 

In the end, it should totally be your decision as to who you choose to marry. I suspect your family's insistence on calling the shots for you goes beyond choosing a life partner for you? In that case, the more immediate action might be to stand your own ground with them, show them you're in charge of your own life now. Otherwise, they'll just continue trying to run your life for you. No matter who you end up marrying.

[Diamonds&Rust]

Hopefully you want to hear from more than just people who agree with you or say what you want to hear. So I'll give you a perspective that I think, as a practicing Christian, you should take into account. It says in the Bible that we are not supposed to marry an unbeliever. We are not supposed to be unequally yoked. God has given us this directive because He knows that is what is best for marriages and for children.

Roman Catholics are not traditionally biblical fundamentalists. Among other liberties, this enables Catholics to acknowledge that St. Paul wrote that directive, with a political agenda that the OP may not share.

 

Additionally, at the time of St. Paul's writing about being "unequally yoked," the boundary between Christianity and Judaism was not as clear as it is now, raising the half-serious question of whether it's even okay to marry a Gentile. Of course, there are plenty of Biblical scholars who don't interpret this passage as having to do with marriage at all, or at least not as a clear-cut prohibition on marrying non-Christians.

 

Consider the phrase "equally yoked," which is rendered in Greek as heterozugos. That word is notably rare in the New Testament. However, there's a passage in Deut. 22 (obviously not written in Greek) about the folly of mismatching livestock with regards to their load-bearing capacities.

 

Reading more into the passage you're quoting, with its talk of darkness and light, reveals a more nuanced definition of this prohibition than simply "do not intermarry," which exists in much more straightforward forms throughout the Old Testament. It seems somewhat backwards to say we're not fundamentalists, but then go around comparing scripture verses.

 

I just have to point out that if Paul had meant being his animal-yoking analogy to prohibit marrying a non-believer, there wouldn't be so much other information in his epistles concerning the phenomena.

 

1 Corinthians 7

 

13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For 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. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

 

(NIV, emphasis mine)

 

A few important points here. The first is that Paul clearly wanted to calm the fears of early followers that their marriages weren't valid. The second is that he leaves the final judgment of whether a partnership is fit or a person is among the faithful to God, leaving the decision to call oneself a Christian far out of the realm of mortal decisions. Essentially, we are to live in peace and leave the judgment to God. Paul is careful in this particular epistle to differentiate between his words (advice to the early Church) and what he considers a directive from God--far more careful than most modern Christians.

 

The event of Paul's conversion is a powerful symbolic representation of the Christian system of morality, as it marks a Christ-led transition away from legalism and towards salvation through the grace of Christ's sacrifice alone. Hopefully the OP's parents will take note, or at least be open enough for God to calm their hostility.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Diamonds&Rust

[FitChick]

My parents were Catholic and got divorced. So much for the theory about marrying someone of the same faith.

[Feelin Frisky]

My general advice to all is love who loves you and let the people whose religion is more important to them than their loved one's real happiness come to terms with the poison that has infected their minds and hearts. If religion hurts, it's not religion, it's evil disguised.

[KathyM]

My parents were Catholic and got divorced. So much for the theory about marrying someone of the same faith.

It's no guarantee that your marriage will last, but it's sure a lot more likely that it will. I know of a lot of couples who share the same faith who have strong marriages, several of whom have lifelong marriages.

[CC12]

Tell her, "Mother, I understand and respect your opinion on my relationship, but I am an adult and have to make my own decisions. Please understand that I've thought this through very carefully, and I'm going to continue dating this person for now. I've always treasured my close relationship with you and it would be a terrible tragedy to allow anything to ruin that. I hope that you feel the same way, and that we can continue to be close no matter how strongly we disagree on any particular subject."

 

How do you think she'd react to that?

[KathyM]

Roman Catholics are not traditionally biblical fundamentalists. Among other liberties, this enables Catholics to acknowledge that St. Paul wrote that directive, with a political agenda that the OP may not share.

 

Additionally, at the time of St. Paul's writing about being "unequally yoked," the boundary between Christianity and Judaism was not as clear as it is now, raising the half-serious question of whether it's even okay to marry a Gentile. Of course, there are plenty of Biblical scholars who don't interpret this passage as having to do with marriage at all, or at least not as a clear-cut prohibition on marrying non-Christians.

 

Consider the phrase "equally yoked," which is rendered in Greek as heterozugos. That word is notably rare in the New Testament. However, there's a passage in Deut. 22 (obviously not written in Greek) about the folly of mismatching livestock with regards to their load-bearing capacities.

 

Reading more into the passage you're quoting, with its talk of darkness and light, reveals a more nuanced definition of this prohibition than simply "do not intermarry," which exists in much more straightforward forms throughout the Old Testament. It seems somewhat backwards to say we're not fundamentalists, but then go around comparing scripture verses.

 

I just have to point out that if Paul had meant being his animal-yoking analogy to prohibit marrying a non-believer, there wouldn't be so much other information in his epistles concerning the phenomena.

 

1 Corinthians 7

 

13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For 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. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

 

17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

 

(NIV, emphasis mine)

 

A few important points here. The first is that Paul clearly wanted to calm the fears of early followers that their marriages weren't valid. The second is that he leaves the final judgment of whether a partnership is fit or a person is among the faithful to God, leaving the decision to call oneself a Christian far out of the realm of mortal decisions. Essentially, we are to live in peace and leave the judgment to God. Paul is careful in this particular epistle to differentiate between his words (advice to the early Church) and what he considers a directive from God--far more careful than most modern Christians.

 

The event of Paul's conversion is a powerful symbolic representation of the Christian system of morality, as it marks a Christ-led transition away from legalism and towards salvation through the grace of Christ's sacrifice alone. Hopefully the OP's parents will take note, or at least be open enough for God to calm their hostility.

Your interpretation of the Bible is not correct. The Bible is the inspired living word of God, not one person's political agenda. The Bible states:

 

"Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Belair? Or what does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agrement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God, as God said, 'I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore, come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean, then I will welcome you, and I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.'

 

The passage you referred to about marrying non-believers referred to Paul's instruction that IF a man or woman is married to a non-believer, then they are not to divorce, but are to remain married and live in peace, with the hope that the non-believer will eventually come to Christ. It is not God's plan that His followers marry non-believers. They are not to be unequally yoked. But if they do marry them, they are directed to not divorce, but to live in peace and lead them to Christ.

[Diamonds&Rust]

Your interpretation of the Bible is not correct.

My intent was not to get into a scripture-war with you. I was only pointing out that Roman Catholics are not traditionally Biblical fundamentalists, therefore your attempt to be helpful probably relates more to your desire to spread Biblical fundamentalism and not to the original poster's dilemma.

The Bible is the inspired living word of God, not one person's political agenda.

The Council of Trent is a historical event; it's not something that I made up.

 

Additionally, Paul's letters to the early church were not intended by their author to be read as the infallible word of God. That's idolatry on your part, ironically.

The Bible states:

Your Bible was written in English. Translation is a creative act. Additionally, St. Paul and God are not the same character. God makes fewer appearances in the Bible than humans do.

It is not God's plan that His followers marry non-believers. They are not to be unequally yoked.

So quoth KathyM & it was good.

 

God asks politely that we not take his name in vain; not all of his requests are easy to follow, but it seems simple enough to take responsibility for your beliefs and interpretations rather than attribute your mode of thought as divine and anyone who disagrees as incorrect.

 

Either way, the OP's parents are Roman Catholic. Catholicism has a rich scholastic history that does not approach the Bible in the same way that your faith tradition appears to.

[TaraMaiden]

He's absolutely right.....

[aj22one]

Hi OP. I thought I'd respond as I've been in several similar situations (dating someone of different religious thoughts or beliefs) including with my current gf (she's Muslim I'm Christian).

 

I'm a practicing, rather progressive Catholic, who is happily dating a professed agnostic. We're both adults with college degrees and are both currently pursuing PhD's in chemistry. For the most part, we share everything but our religious beliefs, which we happily discuss and mull over and think about. Neither one of us is changing, neither one expects the other to change. We've been together 5 months. Things are getting rather serious. Marriage and kids have been brought up in discussion and there's no end in sight to the relationship.

 

All of this sounds good so far.

 

Problem:

 

My family (very… very… VERY…. Conservative Catholic) is 100% in opposition to every aspect of our relationship. I'm currently under a lot of pressure to end things where they stand. Every time I visit my family it's a battle that leaves me reeling and frustrated. My mother is interpreting this as a personal attack on her, and she’s blaming herself for “the way I turned out”. I’ve been forbidden to tell any extended family members (grandpa, cousins, etc.) about our relationship because of the ruckus it would cause in the extended family as well. (Another cousin is marrying a Baptist and s*** is hitting the fan with that…. Not sure I want to know Grandpa’s reaction to an agnostic joining the family….)

 

Yes I have dated women whose family very much reacted the same way yours is. Including my current gf's extended family (lucky for me her immediate family likes me).

 

You're probably going to have to break it to some of your family members slowly and make it clear that your decisions are your own and that you want to keep them in your life but only if they are respectful of your partner. If they want you in their lives those are the rules.

 

 

I’m used to having a very close relationship with my family, especially my mother. When I was in undergrad, we shared everything. Now I’m being forced to keep a large part of my life under wraps for fear of inciting a fight and it’s tearing me apart inside. A close friend of mine advised me that there’s no way that this is going to end well. Either I’ll tear my family relationships to shreds by staying with this guy or I’ll break my heart (and bf’s) by ending things now, without any reason other than to satisfy my family.

 

Like I said you will have to make it clear that you are happy with this person (agnostic and all) and that they must be respectful of you and him or you will not associate with them until they do so. Make it clear that you still love them, and they can disagree with you and your choices but they must respect you, your choices and your boyfriend. You have to be firm on this.

 

What’s making this hard for me that that my family, extended family included, really only wants to see me happy and faithful. They’re of the opinion that, no matter how good the intentions, inter-faith marriages never work in the long run. At best, I’ll fall from the faith, join the heathen ranks of the bf, and I’ll take any children we’ve produced right along with me. At worst, I end up struggling along alone with heathen children due to divorce. They see no other possible endings to the story and they’re right, neither of those endings would leave me happy in the long run.

 

Sometimes they don't work out. But most relationships between any two people don't work out. You could marry a Catholic guy and still end up getting divorced down the road. Or, you could marry a Catholic guy who ends up leaving the faith (or finding a different one). Nothing is guaranteed.

 

 

I, however, see the possibility for a very different ending. One in which bf and I raise several happy, well-adjusted, open-minded children. They’ll have their roots in the Catholic faith, which bf has already said he’s happy to support, even if it means weekly Masses, no meat on Fridays during lent, and religious artifacts in our home. They’ll have solid morals and values instilled in them by two educated parents who love them dearly. When they reach adulthood, they’ll have parents ready and willing to support them in whatever faith and career paths they choose.

 

Am I being too optimistic?

 

I don't think so. I think that's a good way to go about it. My gf and I are uncertain about whether we want children or not. We're both scared to death of the idea to be quite honest. But if we do, we'll create a situation very similar to what you describe here.

[zengirl]

OP,

 

I think your family is misbehaving, if anyone is, and that your BF sounds very open to including your beliefs and customs into his life (without tossing out his own). And you seem to feel similarly. How nice! Overly optimistic? No, no more than anyone has to be to get married. You may be proven wrong, or you may be proven right -- really, only time will tell.

 

I do not think there is any real value in choosing someone of the same faith, but that's me. I do not have the same faith of my parents (they were both raised Catholic, but my mother currently attends a theoretically 'Unitarian' but mostly Christian church---because it's the only Christian church in town that is progressive enough to think it's okay to be gay and accepts homosexuality; my mother is a prissy, straight, Southern woman who really believes firmly that Jesus is Christ, but she's a staunch gay right's activist; she's funny). I'm Buddhist, despite going to Catholic church all the way through the confirmation process, converting to Judiasm for my HS sweetheart/once-fiance, studying Hinduism and Taoism and Islam and Kabbalah and exploring every religion I could find to see if any were a good fit. Hubby, FWIW, is atheist.

 

I do think no one could be with someone who would disparage their core beliefs, but it sounds like you do not have that problem. Sadly, your family does. It's a shame, really.

[norajane]

What’s making this hard for me that that my family, extended family included, really only wants to see me happy and faithful.

 

That's not true. They want you to be happy ONLY UNDER THEIR TERMS AND BELIEFS. Not yours, theirs. There is a difference.

 

Tell them you prayed on it, and you are following YOUR faith in making your decisions.

[KathyM]

My intent was not to get into a scripture-war with you. I was only pointing out that Roman Catholics are not traditionally Biblical fundamentalists, therefore your attempt to be helpful probably relates more to your desire to spread Biblical fundamentalism and not to the original poster's dilemma.

 

The Council of Trent is a historical event; it's not something that I made up.

 

Additionally, Paul's letters to the early church were not intended by their author to be read as the infallible word of God. That's idolatry on your part, ironically.

 

Your Bible was written in English. Translation is a creative act. Additionally, St. Paul and God are not the same character. God makes fewer appearances in the Bible than humans do.

 

So quoth KathyM & it was good.

 

God asks politely that we not take his name in vain; not all of his requests are easy to follow, but it seems simple enough to take responsibility for your beliefs and interpretations rather than attribute your mode of thought as divine and anyone who disagrees as incorrect.

 

Either way, the OP's parents are Roman Catholic. Catholicism has a rich scholastic history that does not approach the Bible in the same way that your faith tradition appears to.

Then what was your intent? To try to discredit the Bible? And use scripture to try to do so? What is your intent in this thread? Roman Catholics believe in the Bible. They believe in the scriptures--the same ones that other Christians do. Catholics are Christians and follow the same word of God. My intent in this thread was to put forth what the Bible says about marrying an unbeliever. Catholics do not deny that the Bible says that. Catholics do not condone marrying outside the faith. They discourage it. If a Catholic wishes to marry an unbeliever, he has to get a dispensation from the Catholic church and agree to raise the children as Catholic. But those marriages--to an unbeliever, are discouraged by the Catholic church.

 

The Council of Trent is a historical event; it's not something that I made up.

 

You who are not a believer really have no ability to accurately decipher Biblical doctrine.

 

Additionally, Paul's letters to the early church were not intended by their author to be read as the infallible word of God. That's idolatry on your part, ironically.

 

Paul quotes what the Lord said in many places in his letters to the Corinthians. The entire Bible is the inspired word of God, and is to be considered as such. You are suggesting that the chapters that Paul wrote are not a part of the Bible. You obviously do not know scripture, and I would suggest you, who are an unbeliever, stop trying to interpret something which you do not understand.

 

Your Bible was written in English. Translation is a creative act. Additionally, St. Paul and God are not the same character. God makes fewer appearances in the Bible than humans do.

 

The words of the Bible have not changed in the 2000 years since they were written. Obviously, they were translated into different languages so that many would be able to read it, but it is the one book that has not changed, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls found some decades ago which show that the writings of the Bible back then have not changed from what they are now.

 

So quoth KathyM & it was good.

 

You know, I'm done talking to you. You just want to mock God's word, and try to discredit the Bible, even though you have no clue as to how to interpret it. Why don't you try talking about something that you are familiar with.

 

God asks politely that we not take his name in vain; not all of his requests are easy to follow, but it seems simple enough to take responsibility for your beliefs and interpretations rather than attribute your mode of thought as divine and anyone who disagrees as incorrect.

 

The only people I see challenging my interpretation are unbelievers.

 

Either way, the OP's parents are Roman Catholic. Catholicism has a rich scholastic history that does not approach the Bible in the same way that your faith tradition appears to.

Catholics also believe that we are instructed to marry people who share the same faith as ours. You are not a Catholic, so why are you trying to speak for them? You are an atheist. Catholics may interpret certain passages a little differently in some cases than other Christian faiths, but we all believe in the truth of the word of God as it is written in the Bible. And now I am done with you. You do not seek to know the truth, you only seek to discredit what you don't understand, and I can see that I am wasting my time in trying to talk to you.

[zengirl]

You who are not a believer really have no ability to accurately decipher Biblical doctrine. [/b]

 

Why, in your opinion, must one believe something to decipher it accurately? That is not the criteria for deciphering in any other context---why with faith?

[TaraMaiden]

Paul quotes what the Lord said in many places in his letters to the Corinthians. The entire Bible is the inspired word of God, and is to be considered as such. You are suggesting that the chapters that Paul wrote are not a part of the Bible. You obviously do not know scripture, and I would suggest you, who are an unbeliever, stop trying to interpret something which you do not understand.

Are you discussing specifically the OT as well as the NT?

When you say 'the whole of the bible', are you including Exodus 21:7, Leviticus 12:1-5, as well as Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15?

 

The words of the Bible have not changed in the 2000 years since they were written. Obviously, they were translated into different languages so that many would be able to read it, but it is the one book that has not changed, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls found some decades ago which show that the writings of the Bible back then have not changed from what they are now.

By virtue of the fact that the Bible has been translated into hundreds of different languages - it has changed - and how - in 2000 years.

I have seen two Bibles, both in English, which clearly gave different interpretations of the same passage... so you're being extremely naive if you presume the Bible has remained unchanged.

 

Let me know when your father intends to sell you into slavery.

Of course, I will use my non-Biblical ideology to save you.

 

If you want, that is.....

 

if you're going to cite the bible as a work of authority, you need to be prepared to back it 100% to the hilt.

[Diamonds&Rust]

Then what was your intent? To try to discredit the Bible? And use scripture to try to do so? What is your intent in this thread?

My intent was to help the original poster.

Roman Catholics believe in the Bible. They believe in the scriptures--the same ones that other Christians do. Catholics are Christians and follow the same word of God.

I said that Catholics are not traditionally Biblical fundamentalists; I stand by that statement.

My intent in this thread was to put forth what the Bible says about marrying an unbeliever.

My point in discussing fundamentalism is pointing out that your interpretation of the Bible comes from your intellect and not directly from God.

Catholics do not condone marrying outside the faith. They discourage it.

Obviously.

 

However, because Catholics are not traditionally Biblical fundamentalists, they don't see a letter from St. Paul to early Christians and think that's God talking directly to them about their marriage.

 

My point is this: you may feel that God forbids marrying an unbeliever; however, there is plenty of room in the Roman Catholic tradition to act differently. To say that the way you understand the Bible is the way God intended and the information that I've provided is incorrect is, at the very least, unhelpful. Moreover, it seems a lot like blasphemy to me, unless you really are God--in which case, please forgive me.

 

You who are not a believer really have no ability to accurately decipher Biblical doctrine.

You who are a person on the internet really have no ability to accurately determine whether I'm a believer or not.

 

Additionally, you're only proving my point about how flawed your scholarship is. First, you claim that your interpretations are God's. Now, you derive your authority in deciphering Biblical doctrine from believing in God. Which is it?

 

Speaking of deciphering, how's your Greek? Hebrew? Just curious.

 

Paul quotes what the Lord said in many places in his letters to the Corinthians.

Yes, which is why I found it helpful to use boldface type to indicate that Paul himself was not doing so in the discussion of interfaith marriages that I cited.

 

Also, when Paul quotes Jesus, it's hearsay at best. St. Paul never met Jesus, at least not while Jesus was alive.

The entire Bible is the inspired word of God, and is to be considered as such.

The way you seem to approach Biblical scholarship is more consistent with fundamentalism.

You are suggesting that the chapters that Paul wrote are not a part of the Bible.

I did not suggest that. You're simply unhappy with my interpretation of the Bible.

You obviously do not know scripture, and I would suggest you, who are an unbeliever, stop trying to interpret something which you do not understand.

Assuming that I'm an unbeliever does nothing to improve your scholarship, nor does it detract from mine.

The words of the Bible have not changed in the 2000 years since they were written.

This is a naive belief; Roman Catholics do not share it. Most of the people who have this belief are Biblical fundamentalists.

Obviously, they were translated into different languages so that many would be able to read it,

This contradicts your earlier statement that the Bible hasn't changed in 2,000 years.

but it is the one book that has not changed, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls found some decades ago which show that the writings of the Bible back then have not changed from what they are now.

The Bible is more than one book. I won't engage you in a discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which had nothing to do with Christian texts like the epistles of St. Paul.

You know, I'm done talking to you.

Good! This thread isn't about us, anyway.

You just want to mock God's word, and try to discredit the Bible, even though you have no clue as to how to interpret it.

It's really delusional of you to claim that your interpretations belong to God but mine are attempts to discredit the Bible. Thinking that you are God seems psychotic to me.

Why don't you try talking about something that you are familiar with.

I did; the only one claiming that I'm an unbeliever with no interest in the Bible is you. I provided information from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that could empower the OP to make a difficult decision while still maintaining dignity and grace.

 

Afterward, I defended her from the unhelpful and irrelevant biblical fundamentalism that has nothing to do with God and everything to do with your ego.

The only people I see challenging my interpretation are unbelievers.

You defining me as an unbeliever does not make it so.

You are not a Catholic, so why are you trying to speak for them?

You say I'm not a Catholic. Cite your source. Your imagination?

Or, did God pass you a note?

Is there a difference?

You are an atheist.

You make stuff up.

Catholics may interpret certain passages a little differently in some cases than other Christian faiths, but we all believe in the truth of the word of God as it is written in the Bible.

I feel like a broken record, but Roman Catholics are not traditionally Biblical fundamentalists. This interpretative difference you're describing is called critical thinking.

 

Kathy, you're behaving as though you started a thread about the Bible and I came in and ruined it with my atheism. I wonder how aware you are of how it actually happened, with you coming in here and saying we're all just placating the poster with what she wants to hear but you've got the dose of divine truth we've all been waiting for.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Diamonds&Rust