# My husband has recently become religious and I'm sooo not



## DaniD0706

So I'm new to this forum but glad I found it. I don't really have anyone to really talk to about this type of situation. So here's the deal.

My husband has recently, in the last three weeks, become a very strong believer. He had an incident with one of his employees that works for our company that resulted in finding the worker intoxicated in his car before work. He saw this as god answering his prayer because the night before he prayed that god would help him find a way to make sure his guys had enough work so he wouldn't have to lay anyone off. This certain worker was new to the trade and wasn't really up to snuff as it were. Showing up to work intoxicated was grounds for termination thus one less person to have to worry about keeping busy. I saw it as a drunk that was passed out in his car and he got busted but like I said my husband saw it as a gift from god. Ever since he's said he's felt different like he's had the spirit of god flow through him. He reads the bible every night and has made some other changes in a very short period of time. It's been a real shock to me and our relationship. I am not a believer in any way, shape, or form and tried to be supportive in the beginning but now I feel like it's completely changed our marriage because I'm constantly worrying about how he's viewing my words and actions. I know I look at him differently now too. 
When we got married we had discussed our religious views and we were pretty much on the same page. We didn't follow any particular religion and didn't really have any interest in the Christian ideals. Now of course that has all changed. He has started going to church by himself and it kind of makes me angry because owning your own business is busy enough and now he's takes more time away from our family to go to church. I know that's not the right way to view it but that's how I feel. Like I said I'm in no way close to being religious and have no interest at all in any faith so this is all a shock to me. This sudden new found religion has definitely put our marriage on the rocks and all I can think of is the old saying "a family that prays together stays together" so if we are in two different worlds now does that mean our marriage won't work?


----------



## Pooh Bear

DaniD0706 said:


> So I'm new to this forum but glad I found it. I don't really have anyone to really talk to about this type of situation. So here's the deal.
> 
> My husband has recently, in the last three weeks, become a very strong believer. He had an incident with one of his employees that works for our company that resulted in finding the worker intoxicated in his car before work. He saw this as god answering his prayer because the night before he prayed that god would help him find a way to make sure his guys had enough work so he wouldn't have to lay anyone off. This certain worker was new to the trade and wasn't really up to snuff as it were. Showing up to work intoxicated was grounds for termination thus one less person to have to worry about keeping busy. I saw it as a drunk that was passed out in his car and he got busted but like I said my husband saw it as a gift from god. Ever since he's said he's felt different like he's had the spirit of god flow through him. He reads the bible every night and has made some other changes in a very short period of time. It's been a real shock to me and our relationship. I am not a believer in any way, shape, or form and tried to be supportive in the beginning but now I feel like it's completely changed our marriage because I'm constantly worrying about how he's viewing my words and actions. I know I look at him differently now too.
> When we got married we had discussed our religious views and we were pretty much on the same page. We didn't follow any particular religion and didn't really have any interest in the Christian ideals. Now of course that has all changed. He has started going to church by himself and it kind of makes me angry because owning your own business is busy enough and now he's takes more time away from our family to go to church. I know that's not the right way to view it but that's how I feel. Like I said I'm in no way close to being religious and have no interest at all in any faith so this is all a shock to me. This sudden new found religion has definitely put our marriage on the rocks and all I can think of is the old saying "a family that prays together stays together" so if we are in two different worlds now does that mean our marriage won't work?


I don't think so. It is definitely an adjustment. But I think as long as he is not expecting you to convert I think it can still work. You just have to work out the logistics of it. Was Sunday the only day that you had as a family?


----------



## EleGirl

Why do you think he looks at you differently now?

About him going to Church weekly. A person, even a married person, should be able to take an hour or two a week to do something that they enjoy and/or is meaningful to them. 

I don't see why you two cannot adjust to his changed perspective on religion.

Furthermore, keep in mind that he made this change on a dime. There is a good chance he'll stop is in the same manner.


----------



## vms

Tough spot. I'm a secular Buddhist and atheist, and could never be married to a "true believer." It would just never work. 

I see this as being similar to a spouse making any other huge change in themselves. Sometimes those changes mean you can't get along with them anymore. You didn't marry a religious person any more than you married an alcoholic or gambler. 

If he can leave you out if his religion, then maybe it could work, but I see it as a recipe for him meeting a "good Christian woman" and leaving you behind. Or you leaving him because he's began trying to convert you. It can really only work if he doesn't allow his beliefs to change how he sees you.


----------



## Vega

The following quotes from your post stuck out the most for me:



DaniD0706 said:


> I am not a believer in any way, shape, or form and tried to be supportive in the beginning but now I feel like it's completely changed our marriage because I'm constantly worrying about how he's viewing my words and actions. I know I look at him differently now too.


It's only been 3 WEEKS and it seems that you're already starting to worry that he views you differently. Have you tried talking to him about this? 



> He has started going to church by himself and it kind of makes me angry because owning your own business is busy enough and now he's takes more time away from our family to go to church. I know that's not the right way to view it but that's how I feel.


How many hours a week is he in church? One? Three? Ten? How would you feel if he spent that same amount of time working out at the gym or going for a run in the neighborhood? 



> This sudden new found religion has definitely put our marriage on the rocks


Wow. Only 3 weeks and you're marriage is already "on the rocks"? No where do you even mention that you tried TALKING to your spouse about your doubts and fears. 



> so if we are in two different worlds now does that mean our marriage won't work?


Of course not. But it's up to BOTH people to reach a mutual compromise about this without resentment building up. 

You seem to have a lot of fear about this. You were probably pretty content with the way things were, and now you're afraid that he'll start to view you differently, because YOU are starting to view HIM differently. Did it occur to you that his change of heart just MIGHT be beneficial (instead of detrimental) to your marriage? 

A lot of 'religion' is about a philosophy of how to live one's life. For example: The Bible says, "Thou shall not lie". MOST people view lying as 'wrong', whether they're 'religious' or not. But the religious people may view lying as wrong because God said so, where as a non-believer may view it as wrong because it tears at the fabric of society. If you and your spouse both view lying as wrong, but for different reasons, do the reasons really matter? 

This only happened 3 weeks ago and it's a big adjustment. It'll take some time to work it out IF you want to work it out. As long as your husband doesn't try to force YOU to start attending church or to believe in HIS beliefs, or you don't resent him for changing his beliefs, then you can both start communicating your fears and needs to one another. 

Another possibility is that this is a phase your husband may be going through, and although his faith is strong NOW, it may weaken if he comes upon another trying time. My own husband (now deceased) went through something similar. Believed he had a revelation of sorts. Lasted for about 3 months. 

Just something to think about.

Vega


----------



## HuggyBear

I don't know if your husband is into "real" Christianity, or one of the "convenience-store" branches of it, but try to make a positive of it...

There are most likely some "rules" to his faith that he is probably getting used to practicing... some that you might find benefit from.

Alternatively, there might be some rules about how he should be treating you and your family.

Read a bunch of stuff regarding his faith... ALL kinds of stuff, from basic beliefs to various areas of criticism on it. There are some areas in it you can agree with, and some valid points against it.

As someone who is NOT of faith, you obviously shouldn't be expected to join him in his religion, but that doesn't mean that there aren't ways you can benefit.


----------



## woundedwarrior

I can speak as someone that is a Christian, if he truly has turned himself over to God now, your marriage will no longer work. The fact that it bothers you that he spends an hour a week at church proves my point. Atheists and Christians don't mix and they never will. The Christian faith is a way of life and not just an hour a week and I've never met an atheist who doesn't grow tired of it.
I'm not knocking you or anyone else, you're free to believe what you want, but unless you can completely support him, it will never work.

Read this and do further research and the facts will be the same.

http://family.custhelp.com/app/answ...~/marriage-between-an-atheist-and-a-christian


----------



## Married but Happy

woundedwarrior said:


> unless you can completely support him, it will never work.


Yes, and unless he can completely support you, it will never work either.


----------



## Vega

woundedwarrior said:


> Atheists and Christians don't mix and they never will.


My exb/f was an atheist married to a deeply religious Christian woman for 17 years before she passed away. She went to church on Sunday and was otherwise involved in the church. He even attended church with her once in a great while. 

Although he didn't believe in God, he never tried to stop HER from believing or practicing her own religion. He never mocked her for her beliefs. Guess you could say that he practiced tolerance for her beliefs. Tolerance is a very Christian principle.

And yes, there are atheists who are more "Christian" than some Christians!

Vega


----------



## happy as a clam

You say your marriage is "on the rocks" after only THREE WEEKS of him exploring his faith. This doesn't speak well to the strength of your marriage to begin with, OP.

My good friend is a devout Christian married to an atheist for 27 years. They have a remarkable marriage. She doesn't try to pursuade him to convert, and he respects her right to practice her faith.

Have a little "faith" in your marriage...


----------



## vms

Was your husband religious prior to meeting you? 

You said, "He saw this as god answering his prayer because the night before he prayed that god would help him find a way to make sure his guys had enough work so he wouldn't have to lay anyone off." 

This sounds to me like he is more religious than he was letting on. Non-religious people don't generally pray about things.

My DH was very religious as a kid/teen. As he got older, he found less and less reason to be religious, and questioned it a lot more. He would describe himself to me as basically agnostic. I found it strange though that he kept a bible on his nightstand. He never could give me a good reason why that made any sense with what he claimed to believe.

One time he was visiting me while he was on leave from his position overseas. I noticed he had a bible in his backpack. I was very confused by this - why would a non-religious, non-practicing person devote backpack space to a bible on an international trip if they had no intention of reading it? 

I asked him about it, and he basically refused to answer. We had a fight over it. I felt betrayed, and I felt like I wasn't sure if I really knew him. Finding a bible in his backpack went against what he claimed to believe, kind of like finding a pipe in the bag of someone who says they don't get high. He didn't think it mattered, but to ME, it mattered a lot. I did not, would not, marry someone who fully believed in God. I just couldn't. It goes against everything that I believe. So it was a big deal to me, it was a deal breaker.

I dropped the issue in the end, figuring time would tell if it was going to be a problem or not. It hasn't come up since. I still get the feeling he's not being honest with me, but he hasn't ever mentioned religion so why let myself worry about it? 

If you and he can't avoid telling the other they are wrong, or feeling contempt for each other for not "seeing the truth," then there's a big incompatibility issue in your marriage. 

If you can understand why he has become (for the first time, or again) religious, then you might find yourself giving him some slack. But if you just really cannot possibly wrap your head around it, and he continues to be religious, and it changes how you view him, then I think you'd be doing you both a favor to leave the marriage.


----------



## Pooh Bear

woundedwarrior said:


> I can speak as someone that is a Christian, if he truly has turned himself over to God now, your marriage will no longer work. The fact that it bothers you that he spends an hour a week at church proves my point. Atheists and Christians don't mix and they never will. The Christian faith is a way of life and not just an hour a week and I've never met an atheist who doesn't grow tired of it.
> I'm not knocking you or anyone else, you're free to believe what you want, but unless you can completely support him, it will never work.
> 
> Read this and do further research and the facts will be the same.
> 
> Marriage Between an Atheist and a Christian


I am a Christian and I dated an atheist for three and a half years with no issue. He supported my beliefs and I supported his. The religion was not the reason that relationship ended. So it is completely possible. Both people just have to be willing to respect the others religious stance.


----------



## SadSamIAm

My father was a devout Roman Catholic. My mother an aetheist. 

My father went to church every week. Sometimes more than once. My mother never attended. My mother only attended for the odd wedding/funeral.

They were married for 50 years. No issues with one being religious and the other not.


----------



## woundedwarrior

SadSamIAm said:


> My father was a devout Roman Catholic. My mother an aetheist.
> 
> My father went to church every week. Sometimes more than once. My mother never attended. My mother only attended for the odd wedding/funeral.
> 
> They were married for 50 years. No issues with one being religious and the other not.


That is remarkable. The Catholic church usually won't marry couples of different denominations, much less an atheist. My first wife was a Nazarene and that was the only reason I was granted an annulment, even though she cheated on me as well.


----------



## Aspydad

DaniD0706 said:


> So I'm new to this forum but glad I found it. I don't really have anyone to really talk to about this type of situation. So here's the deal.
> 
> My husband has recently, in the last three weeks, become a very strong believer. He had an incident with one of his employees that works for our company that resulted in finding the worker intoxicated in his car before work. He saw this as god answering his prayer because the night before he prayed that god would help him find a way to make sure his guys had enough work so he wouldn't have to lay anyone off. This certain worker was new to the trade and wasn't really up to snuff as it were. Showing up to work intoxicated was grounds for termination thus one less person to have to worry about keeping busy. I saw it as a drunk that was passed out in his car and he got busted but like I said my husband saw it as a gift from god. Ever since he's said he's felt different like he's had the spirit of god flow through him. He reads the bible every night and has made some other changes in a very short period of time. It's been a real shock to me and our relationship. I am not a believer in any way, shape, or form and tried to be supportive in the beginning but now I feel like it's completely changed our marriage because I'm constantly worrying about how he's viewing my words and actions. I know I look at him differently now too.
> When we got married we had discussed our religious views and we were pretty much on the same page. We didn't follow any particular religion and didn't really have any interest in the Christian ideals. Now of course that has all changed. He has started going to church by himself and it kind of makes me angry because owning your own business is busy enough and now he's takes more time away from our family to go to church. I know that's not the right way to view it but that's how I feel. Like I said I'm in no way close to being religious and have no interest at all in any faith so this is all a shock to me. This sudden new found religion has definitely put our marriage on the rocks and all I can think of is the old saying "a family that prays together stays together" so if we are in two different worlds now does that mean our marriage won't work?


Let me see if I get this straight – your husband has realized that God is real and that the only explanation for his existence on this earth is that he was created; he has now formed a relationship with God whom he views as his creator – so in response you are contemplating turning your back on your Husband – is this correct? 

Why is your response not – wow, you actually believe – I sure wish I could – for some reason I cannot even bring myself to think about the possibility that a God exists and prefer to just believe that we are here on this earth by chance. I sure wish I could believe because then we could both worship God the Creator together. To me – this would be the response of a wife who loves and respects her husband and wants to be his partner until the end. Or, are you just his partner as long as he believes as you think he should believe? Kind of like – you’re in charge kind of thing – or “my way or the highway.” Is it that painful to actually support your husband and go to Church with him – are the people that are there that repulsive? If so – you may want to search real deep and ask yourself why you feel this way.

But, your response is what – Jealousy? Rejection? Insecurity? Doubt? What is it? Maybe you understand that your Husband just might expect that his wife submit to him? Scary?? Maybe your husband may want to actually give money to his Church – big problem??

So, you expect your husband to stop believing? Or, just stop going to Church and Lie to you and say he really does not believe so that the above feelings go away – Jealousy, Rejection, Insecurity, Doubt that is. You HATE the idea of God that much?

The sound of your post makes it seem as though your husband has contracted aids or something - when the fact is - there is over a billion of people in the world just like you're husband who believe that God is real. If you're in the US - the majority (9 in 10) believe in God - so who is the one who may need to rethink here?

I have seen this by the way - one of my Great Grandfathers was an atheist and his wife was a Christian - he loved her and still went to Church to be with her - as far as I know - he never believed right to the end - even after she died - but, I guess I will never know what was in his heart when that happened - I was only about 8 years old at the time and he died two years later. They where married for for over 55 years - and were happy.

By the way - prayer is very powerful - and God does answer prayers just like what happened to your husband - I think your husband probably has a few more payers that he has placed in the Lords lap and he is still waiting for the response - I hope he get what he asked for - I think I am going to say a prayer myself.

If there is a God - I know that He loves you.


----------



## Aspydad

woundedwarrior said:


> That is remarkable. The Catholic church usually won't marry couples of different denominations, much less an atheist. My first wife was a Nazarene and that was the only reason I was granted an annulment, even though she cheated on me as well.


That is what thought as well - at least in the old days - my great Great Grandparents had to elope because he was Atheist and she was Catholic.


----------



## norajane

OP, you said you were worried that he might see you differently now. Do you see him differently? Is that the real problem here?

I'm not religious and don't believe in God or gods or goddesses or anything. Neither does my SO. If he suddenly started praying and believing and thinking God sent him a guy sleeping off his bender as a sign, I'd think he was nuts. Seriously, I would, because he's never shown any signs of faith despite having a mother who strongly believes. 

So I get it - it's very disconcerting when your partner suddenly seems to be someone else. I'd feel the same way if my SO suddenly started buying Hugo Boss and Ermenegildo Zegna suits, suddenly started to hate dogs, or suddenly told me he was bisexual. Who are you and what have you been smoking???

Maybe you can find a way to come to acceptance on religion. I don't really have any advice on how since I do see faith as one of those "irreconcilable differences" and I would totally see my SO as a different person if he changed the beliefs he's always professed. I also wouldn't be able to tolerate it as I believe it's all myths and fairy tales. So I'm just posting to tell you that I understand your viewpoint and why you're freaking out right now.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Aspydad said:


> That is what thought as well - at least in the old days - my great Great Grandparents had to elope because he was Atheist and she was Catholic.


My parents were married some 60 years ago in the Catholic church. I know my dad told me he was worried that the marriage might not be allowed in the church because my mom wasn't Catholic, but it was allowed. 

I doubt that my mom ever told the Priest that she was aetheist. Just that she wasn't Catholic.


----------



## happy as a clam

norajane said:


> So I get it - it's very disconcerting when your partner suddenly seems to be someone else. I'd feel the same way if my SO suddenly started buying Hugo Boss and Ermenegildo Zegna suits, suddenly started to hate dogs, or suddenly told me he was bisexual. Who are you and what have you been smoking???


OP, don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

I am a devout Catholic, but most people would never know it. Not that I don't share my faith when apropos... but I never "push" or "shove" my beliefs on ANYONE (including my children.)

I taught them what I believe, but it's up to them to form their own opinions -- not up to me to turn them into "rote" robots.

Rejoice if your husband has found peace through his new-found faith (notice I don't use the word "religion??") Work out an agreement where he is free to do his thing and you are free to do yours.


----------



## DaniD0706

Let me start off by saying I appreciate everyone’s input. 
The whole situation has improved on some fronts. To answer some questions yes, we did talk about it and it resulted in very little resolution. When we first got together and for the past 7 years of our marriage he gave me no indication that he was even slightly religious. We didn’t get married in a church and our officiant was a pastor at a local church that was an acquaintance of my side of the family. I love my husband and we never fought or had a rough patch since we met until now so that is what has me so on edge. When I said our marriage is on the rocks it’s how I felt. I was upset and caught off guard. So much had changed in such a short time and we had actually “talked” about it that day and it didn’t go so well. So I felt like we were just going to stay angry at each other and that’s just how it would stay. He’s still going to attend church on Sundays and no, 3 hours during one day a week is not a deal breaker but owning our own business does not leave a lot of time during the week to spend together so weekends were reserved for family time. 
As far as him seeing me differently, the bible (from what he has tried to explain to me) tells you how to live a good/righteous life. Keep in mind I have never read the bible or gone to church so this is very foreign to me. So if I don’t fit into the way a Christian is supposed to live their life that would cause him to view me as, what I believe would be categorized as, a sinner and creating more turmoil later if I don’t change my views. I know someone said that since he did get into this so quickly he is likely to come away from it just as quickly and he is an impulsive person but he says this is something he plans of sticking with. 
Some also said the problem could be or is me. Yes, I’m not above saying that it could be me but that is why I wanted to explain this to someone that is not connected to us and get others point of view. I realize it’s nothing drastic like he recently became a drunk or abusive or he’s unfaithful to me I get it, trust me. I needed an outsider’s perspective and this gave me the opportunity.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*Why is your response not – wow, you actually believe – I sure wish I could – for some reason I cannot even bring myself to think about the possibility that a God exists and prefer to just believe that we are here on this earth by chance. I sure wish I could believe because then we could both worship God the Creator together. To me – this would be the response of a wife who loves and respects her husband and wants to be his partner until the end. Or, are you just his partner as long as he believes as you think he should believe? Kind of like – you’re in charge kind of thing – or “my way or the highway.” Is it that painful to actually support your husband and go to Church with him – are the people that are there that repulsive? If so – you may want to search real deep and ask yourself why you feel this way.*

Huh? Why would her response need to be, "I wish I could believe?" All her response has to be is "I'm glad you have found something that makes you happy." For some people it is that painful to go to church. Or just a waste of time. Atheists can be just as devoted to their beliefs as a Christian. As we have seen in these posts, some people really want a partner who has similar beliefs concerning religion. This poster will have to think about whether she is ok accepting that they will have two different religious beliefs.

*Maybe you understand that your Husband just might expect that his wife submit to him? Scary??
*
Yeah that is scary actually. That is why I have made a concerted effort to avoid "devout" Christian men. Because they like to use God as a weapon to maintain control over my personhood. My husband attends church with me and believes in God but he also questions the church.

*The sound of your post makes it seem as though your husband has contracted aids or something - when the fact is - there is over a billion of people in the world just like you're husband who believe that God is real. If you're in the US - the majority (9 in 10) believe in God - so who is the one who may need to rethink here?
*

If 9 out of 10 people jumped off a cliff should a person do that too? Just because the majority of people believe in God does not mean that an individual should. That's not a very good reason to follow a religious belief.

*I have seen this by the way - one of my Great Grandfathers was an atheist and his wife was a Christian - he loved her and still went to Church to be with her - as far as I know - he never believed right to the end - even after she died - but, I guess I will never know what was in his heart when that happened - I was only about 8 years old at the time and he died two years later. They where married for for over 55 years - and were happy.
*

That's sweet. I'm glad that they were happy.


----------



## Pooh Bear

DaniD0706 said:


> Let me start off by saying I appreciate everyone’s input.
> The whole situation has improved on some fronts. To answer some questions yes, we did talk about it and it resulted in very little resolution. When we first got together and for the past 7 years of our marriage he gave me no indication that he was even slightly religious. We didn’t get married in a church and our officiant was a pastor at a local church that was an acquaintance of my side of the family. I love my husband and we never fought or had a rough patch since we met until now so that is what has me so on edge. When I said our marriage is on the rocks it’s how I felt. I was upset and caught off guard. So much had changed in such a short time and we had actually “talked” about it that day and it didn’t go so well. So I felt like we were just going to stay angry at each other and that’s just how it would stay. He’s still going to attend church on Sundays and no, 3 hours during one day a week is not a deal breaker but owning our own business does not leave a lot of time during the week to spend together so weekends were reserved for family time.
> As far as him seeing me differently, the bible (from what he has tried to explain to me) tells you how to live a good/righteous life. Keep in mind I have never read the bible or gone to church so this is very foreign to me. So if I don’t fit into the way a Christian is supposed to live their life that would cause him to view me as, what I believe would be categorized as, a sinner and creating more turmoil later if I don’t change my views. I know someone said that since he did get into this so quickly he is likely to come away from it just as quickly and he is an impulsive person but he says this is something he plans of sticking with.
> Some also said the problem could be or is me. Yes, I’m not above saying that it could be me but that is why I wanted to explain this to someone that is not connected to us and get others point of view. I realize it’s nothing drastic like he recently became a drunk or abusive or he’s unfaithful to me I get it, trust me. I needed an outsider’s perspective and this gave me the opportunity.


Don't make assumptions about Christians. He may not judge anything you are doing. He has a responsiblity to make this marriage work, as well. It wouldn't be helpful to a good marriage if he starts judging you and telling you you need to repent.  It will probably just take time to see how this change affects him. I would just suggest being happy for him that he has found something that makes him happy. And maintain your own boundries about what is important to you. It can work you just have to be respectful of each other.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DaniD0706 said:


> Let me start off by saying I appreciate everyone’s input.
> The whole situation has improved on some fronts. To answer some questions yes, we did talk about it and it resulted in very little resolution. When we first got together and for the past 7 years of our marriage he gave me no indication that he was even slightly religious. We didn’t get married in a church and our officiant was a pastor at a local church that was an acquaintance of my side of the family. I love my husband and we never fought or had a rough patch since we met until now so that is what has me so on edge. When I said our marriage is on the rocks it’s how I felt. I was upset and caught off guard. So much had changed in such a short time and we had actually “talked” about it that day and it didn’t go so well. So I felt like we were just going to stay angry at each other and that’s just how it would stay. He’s still going to attend church on Sundays and no, 3 hours during one day a week is not a deal breaker but owning our own business does not leave a lot of time during the week to spend together so weekends were reserved for family time.
> As far as him seeing me differently, the bible (from what he has tried to explain to me) tells you how to live a good/righteous life. Keep in mind I have never read the bible or gone to church so this is very foreign to me. So if I don’t fit into the way a Christian is supposed to live their life that would cause him to view me as, what I believe would be categorized as, a sinner and creating more turmoil later if I don’t change my views. I know someone said that since he did get into this so quickly he is likely to come away from it just as quickly and he is an impulsive person but he says this is something he plans of sticking with.
> Some also said the problem could be or is me. Yes, I’m not above saying that it could be me but that is why I wanted to explain this to someone that is not connected to us and get others point of view. I realize it’s nothing drastic like he recently became a drunk or abusive or he’s unfaithful to me I get it, trust me. I needed an outsider’s perspective and this gave me the opportunity.


Just wanted to comment on a couple of things Dani. Ignore the posts saying it won't work. That is unbiblical. Also, something that may help you not feel under the microscope is realizing your H is STILL a sinner. Becoming Christian does not make him sinless all of a sudden and now he's "above" you. No, the ground at the foot of the cross is level and will always remain so. There are no hills elevating one person over another. All have equal need of Christ, therefore if there is elevation it is self created through pride and self righteousness and is a sin thus proving my point. So be encouraged to not fear a microscope. He is called to remove the plank out of his own eye before removing the speck in yours, come to you in a spirit of understanding and lay his life down for you regardless of your beliefs. If you want to remain with him Christ very much approves and I've got scripture to back it up. Oh, and one way to remedy the family time is just to go with him, not under the ospice of conversion, but just to not lose that time with him. Several posters have said the nonbelieving spouse attended. Don't make that a bigger deal than it needs to be. As long as you are not abused in that space, go be with him. Time away solved.


----------



## Westwind

Give him a chance. He does not have a strong foundation.


----------



## Westwind

DaniD0706 said:


> ... He had an incident with one of his employees that works for our company that resulted in finding the worker intoxicated in his car before work. He saw this as god answering his prayer because the night before he prayed that god would help him find a way to make sure his guys had enough work so he wouldn't have to lay anyone off. This certain worker was new to the trade and wasn't really up to snuff as it were. Showing up to work intoxicated was grounds for termination thus one less person to have to worry about keeping busy. I saw it as a drunk that was passed out in his car and he got busted but like I said my husband saw it as a gift from god. Ever since he's said he's felt different like he's had the spirit of god flow through him. He reads the bible every night and has made some other changes in a very short period of time...


He does not seem to me like he is truly spiritually enlightened. To really be so, he would have to pray about what to do while observing the drunk. It could have been the best thing to do would have been to get the fellow into an alcoholic's program for dealing with the problem. Your husband also does not know what the future might really bring. What if he did more marketing, or cut everyone back to 36 hours per week. These are things he could pray about with an open mind to accept whatever answer comes while praying, God's will be done in other words. 

It is really difficult to do this because it means suppressing one's ego and being open. I doubt he is any closer to God than you are because he is just going with his own intellect and subconscious. I know this sounds odd, but you might be closer to God than he is. I was somewhere between an atheist and an agnostic, but was experimenting with a particular kind of meditation when I received a gift of enlightenment and I have now been following that beacon for 43 years. This does not have anything to do with "faith" except to give meditation a try. I do not want to push this path onto anyone else because it is very hard to do, to slowly let the ego dissolve away, or perhaps burn to ashes is another way of saying it, but no one gets harmed and the answers are always consistent with a problem. I am sure his mind is jumping around like a monkey.


----------



## soccermom2three

woundedwarrior said:


> That is remarkable. The Catholic church usually won't marry couples of different denominations, much less an atheist. .


Not true. My BIL is Catholic and my SIL is Methodist and they were married in the Catholic Church. Just one of many couples I know that were married in the Catholic Church where one of the newlyweds is not Catholic.


----------



## Starstarfish

> To me – this would be the response of a wife who loves and respects her husband and wants to be his partner until the end. Or, are you just his partner as long as he believes as you think he should believe? Kind of like – you’re in charge kind of thing – or “my way or the highway."


So when someone baits-and-switches a major tenet of the relationship - religion and involvement with the religious community, that's okay. As long as it's a man - then the question is about a wife's love and respect. And obviously the pain and terror of her having her own opinions and wanting to be equally considered in his "new" life. 



> Maybe you understand that your Husband just might expect that his wife submit to him? Scary??


Guessed it would be rather quickly before that came up. And that right there is probably one of the biggest issues when someone suddenly "finds religion" and their religion tells them exactly what they want to hear - they should be the one in charge otherwise, God is mad or disappointed! 

So, ultimately, it might depend what branch of Christianity your husband has involved himself in. If it's one heavily rooted in heavy "man good" "woman bad" theology, let me tell you from experience - that's a hard road to walk. 

And that's why I no longer go to church.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*So when someone baits-and-switches a major tenet of the relationship - religion and involvement with the religious community, that's okay.*

I don't agree that it was bait and switch. That implies some intent - like he knew he was a Christian ahead of time but was trying to hide it to marry her. It is more that people just change. That just comes with age and is a human trait. Unfortunately, in marriage, that can sometimes make things difficult. Either you can grow and change together or you can't.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Starstarfish said:


> So when someone baits-and-switches a major tenet of the relationship - religion and involvement with the religious community, that's okay. As long as it's a man - then the question is about a wife's love and respect. And obviously the pain and terror of her having her own opinions and wanting to be equally considered in his "new" life.
> 
> 
> 
> Guessed it would be rather quickly before that came up. And that right there is probably one of the biggest issues when someone suddenly "finds religion" and their religion tells them exactly what they want to hear - they should be the one in charge otherwise, God is mad or disappointed!
> 
> So, ultimately, it might depend what branch of Christianity your husband has involved himself in. If it's one heavily rooted in heavy "man good" "woman bad" theology, let me tell you from experience - that's a hard road to walk.
> 
> And that's why I no longer go to church.


I guaratee you it was a hard road to walk because of misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Sorry it was that way for you


----------



## Starstarfish

Pooh Bear said:


> *So when someone baits-and-switches a major tenet of the relationship - religion and involvement with the religious community, that's okay.*
> 
> I don't agree that it was bait and switch. That implies some intent - like he knew he was a Christian ahead of time but was trying to hide it to marry her. It is more that people just change. That just comes with age and is a human trait. Unfortunately, in marriage, that can sometimes make things difficult. Either you can grow and change together or you can't.


It was less about it actually being a bait-and-switch and more about it's perception. It just seems that overall on TAM when a woman makes this kind of decision about nearly anything this major there's a hawk and cry about how women as a collective are deceitful and only marry only false pretenses, and etc, etc.

There is little if any room given for indeed, the idea of individual growth or a changing of one's mind. It's simply not allowed.

But when it's a man - it's heralded as only right. And more specifically in this specific instance it's right - because it's returning things to the proper order. That this man can now fully embrace his manhood by expecting his woman to "obey him" and obviously if she doesn't like his changing attitude, it's because she disagrees with the "proper order of things."


----------



## Pooh Bear

Starstarfish said:


> It was less about it actually being a bait-and-switch and more about it's perception. It just seems that overall on TAM when a woman makes this kind of decision about nearly anything this major there's a hawk and cry about how women as a collective are deceitful and only marry only false pretenses, and etc, etc.
> 
> There is little if any room given for indeed, the idea of individual growth or a changing of one's mind. It's simply not allowed.
> 
> But when it's a man - it's heralded as only right. And more specifically in this specific instance it's right - because it's returning things to the proper order. That this man can now fully embrace his manhood by expecting his woman to "obey him" and obviously if she doesn't like his changing attitude, it's because she disagrees with the "proper order of things."


I see. That's frustrating.


----------



## Pooh Bear

foolscotton3 said:


> By:
> 
> You mean "accepting him?"
> 
> Would it be more acceptable if he took out Jesus, and instead spent his Sundays following men kicking around a bag of wind?


I think the original poster would prefer that he is not a Christian at all. And she does not have to accept this change. There is no reason for her to do so beyond her desire to continue with this marriage. This may be a dealbreaker for her. Think of it as if your partner joined an organization that you completely disagree with. How would you feel? Shock, probably. And then you would assess if it is ok that they are part of that organization. Not everyone is a Christian and not everyone wants to be.


----------



## Thundarr

Dani, try not to let _*what if*_ thinking get the better of you. It seems like you're more afraid of the unknown than anything else so your mind spins possible outcomes. That's a short ride to anxiety and it will end up making you see things not really there IMO.

As long as you guys don't try to force a belief or lifestyle on each other then it really shouldn't cause conflict for him to be a believer and you not. There are many couples who remain happy and married when they both started out Christians and then one of them stops believing in religion as time passes. At least it seems that way.


----------



## A_DelVeccio

DaniD0706 said:


> So I'm new to this forum but glad I found it. I don't really have anyone to really talk to about this type of situation. So here's the deal.
> 
> My husband has recently, in the last three weeks, become a very strong believer. He had an incident with one of his employees that works for our company that resulted in finding the worker intoxicated in his car before work. He saw this as god answering his prayer because the night before he prayed that god would help him find a way to make sure his guys had enough work so he wouldn't have to lay anyone off. This certain worker was new to the trade and wasn't really up to snuff as it were. Showing up to work intoxicated was grounds for termination thus one less person to have to worry about keeping busy. I saw it as a drunk that was passed out in his car and he got busted but like I said my husband saw it as a gift from god. Ever since he's said he's felt different like he's had the spirit of god flow through him. He reads the bible every night and has made some other changes in a very short period of time. It's been a real shock to me and our relationship. I am not a believer in any way, shape, or form and tried to be supportive in the beginning but now I feel like it's completely changed our marriage because I'm constantly worrying about how he's viewing my words and actions. I know I look at him differently now too.
> When we got married we had discussed our religious views and we were pretty much on the same page. We didn't follow any particular religion and didn't really have any interest in the Christian ideals. Now of course that has all changed. He has started going to church by himself and it kind of makes me angry because owning your own business is busy enough and now he's takes more time away from our family to go to church. I know that's not the right way to view it but that's how I feel. Like I said I'm in no way close to being religious and have no interest at all in any faith so this is all a shock to me. This sudden new found religion has definitely put our marriage on the rocks and all I can think of is the old saying "a family that prays together stays together" so if we are in two different worlds now does that mean our marriage won't work?



Why is it your way or no way? Why is him going to church for an hour for one day a week a reason to get mad? 

If this is important to him, shouldn't you be supportive?


----------



## Starstarfish

The OP indicated that they have little if any time together because of the time required to run their (or his) business, so I think she may be feeling that his church time is replacing their couple time, IE - that he's choosing his new found faith instead of her.

Some people who are faithful might feel that's "wrong" but - no matter if you are a person of faith or not, church time isn't couple time, so - it seems like there's going to be some figuring some things out for them not to sacrifice their time together so she doesn't feel "Left Behind."


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I think that when someones outlook on life changes dramatically, it is OK to re-evaluate a marriage, but I also think that people should allow some time for these changes to complete and settle in.

I think a religious and non-religious person can be married, but only if each is truly willing to accept the other's belief, or lack of belief. If the religious person believes that they have a duty to convert the non-believer, then things will not go well. If the non-religious person has contempt for the beliefs of the religious person, there will be bad problems.

A key issue to be discussed (if applicable) is how to raise children as this is an area where no compromise may be possible.


----------



## FormerSelf

I can see how this could put a strain on the marriage...in that H may actually incur the lowering of your respect. Also, as he continues to go and is getting edification and support from the church, being more of a part of the community of believers, H may begin to desire you presence...not to mention the burden he may feel concerning your own eternal future.

While the Bible does say to be wary of being "unequally yoked", it also says that if one is married to an unbeliever...and the unbeliever is still devoted to the marriage, then divorce should not be an option.

However, there is one area that should be discussed. If he is committed to his faith and you are committed to not participate...it should be stated that he needs to be going to men's groups and do his best to only associate with mature men. The last thing you need is for your husband to start relationships with women in the church...where basically he is sharing and receiving things from OW that he is unable to with you. Christians in the church cheat as much as non-believers.

You may very much feel like you are losing your husband and it is threatening the foundation of your home. To be honest, if his spiritual journey is genuine and the church is a healthy influence, then you may actually see improvements on his demeanor, attitude, patience, etc. If the changes are having a negative effect on him...whether he is acting increasingly critical or judgemental, the church has an unhealthy influence of control, or he begins to neglect his duties as a husband and whatnot...then it is worth asking him to set boundaries. 

Here is a trick: challenge him with the Bible itself. If his beliefs start to be a little loopy or if he is being negative, then challenge him to show you in Scripture where he is justified. Of course, this may mean you may have to study up on the Bible yourself or do lots of online queries about certain issues...but trust me, there is no Biblical justification for ever leaving your family in the dust for church fellowship.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FormerSelf said:


> I can see how this could put a strain on the marriage...in that H may actually incur the lowering of your respect. Also, as he continues to go and is getting edification and support from the church, being more of a part of the community of believers, H may begin to desire you presence...not to mention the burden he may feel concerning your own eternal future.
> 
> While the Bible does say to be wary of being "unequally yoked", it also says that if one is married to an unbeliever...and the unbeliever is still devoted to the marriage, then divorce should not be an option.
> 
> However, there is one area that should be discussed. If he is committed to his faith and you are committed to not participate...it should be stated that he needs to be going to men's groups and do his best to only associate with mature men. The last thing you need is for your husband to start relationships with women in the church...where basically he is sharing and receiving things from OW that he is unable to with you. Christians in the church cheat as much as non-believers.
> 
> You may very much feel like you are losing your husband and it is threatening the foundation of your home. To be honest, if his spiritual journey is genuine and the church is a healthy influence, then you may actually see improvements on his demeanor, attitude, patience, etc. If the changes are having a negative effect on him...whether he is acting increasingly critical or judgemental, the church has an unhealthy influence of control, or he begins to neglect his duties as a husband and whatnot...then it is worth asking him to set boundaries.
> 
> Here is a trick: challenge him with the Bible itself. If his beliefs start to be a little loopy or if he is being negative, then challenge him to show you in Scripture where he is justified. Of course, this may mean you may have to study up on the Bible yourself or do lots of online queries about certain issues...but trust me, there is no Biblical justification for ever leaving your family in the dust for church fellowship.


EXTREMELY wise post....


----------



## daisybush

Its good your husband become religious, explain him being religious is good thing but he should also maintain relation healthy way with you.


----------



## Jmurphy

daisybush said:


> Its good your husband become religious, explain him being religious is good thing but he should also maintain relation healthy way with you.



this 

great point, nothing can be settled in a nice conversation.


----------



## batsociety

I think for now you should just try to be understanding, open-minded and patient. After all, if it only took one positive event for him to turn into a good, God loving Christian, it'll probably only take one negative event to change him right back.


----------



## Happilymarried25

I don't see why it has to affect your marriage as long as he doesn't make you feel guilty for not being religious. My Mom was Catholic and went to church every Sunday, my Dad converted to marry her but never went to church and it wasn't a problem.


----------



## norajane

Happilymarried25 said:


> I don't see why it has to affect your marriage as long as he doesn't make you feel guilty for not being religious. My Mom was Catholic and went to church every Sunday, my Dad converted to marry her but never went to church and it wasn't a problem.


She might see HIM differently now. Atheists aren't necessarily open to partnering for life with someone they perceive as believing in myths. She didn't marry someone who believed in myths about gods, but now he's become that person and she isn't into it.

Vegetarians and meat eaters might be able to have a long, happy relationship if that's how they started their relationship. But some vegetarians might see their partners differently if they suddenly started eating meat even though they've always professed that they don't accept killing animals for food.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Hey Dani,

What is happening with this? How are you doing?


----------



## jaquen

Having an encounter with Jesus as your savior is a powerful, life altering change. From the believer's perspective it is the single most important moment of your entire existence; more important than your marriage, your career, even the birth of your own children. It's like being in a dark room and having the light switched on.

Yes some impulsive people medicate on religion briefly. They don't have a true salvation moment, and their interest wanes as quickly as it came. But don't assume that because the experience happened suddenly that it's going to disappear. There are so many people who've had sudden, radical encounters with God that changed the course of their lives forever.

This is an extremely difficult position you're in, and I sympathize. For both of you. It's not as easy as him just keeping his spiritual transformation to himself. Anybody suggesting that doesn't really know how this works. It would be like your partner undergoing a sex change and suggesting that they keep it to themselves. No.

Jesus Christ is the most important figure in my life. I would have never married a woman who didn't have a personal relationship with him as her savior. It would never work because I couldn't be married to someone who didn't share THE single most important part of my life. We're talking about people who are discussing eternal views, not just life here. Huge matters. It's similar to the same way an atheist earlier in this thread said they could never be with a "true believer". They were dead on. If they look at their partners as being dedicated to a fantasy or myth, they would be asked to live with a perspective they consider delusional. A lot of atheists would never be with a believing partner for these, and many other reasons. 

If your husband's conversion is a true, spiritual matter it will change your life. Even if he doesn't judge your actions in the way you fear, he will be prioritizing God in a way that you don't understand and that might make you very upset. He likely will also alway be praying to the Lord in hopes that you have the same experience. 


For now I think you should remain open and try and learn as much as you can about his views. You all have so much to learn. Can't really make any major decisions unless you both get a better grasp on what's actually in front of you.

Later on you both need to be brutally honest about your expectations. His whole life view is shifting away from you. Can you live with that? Can he live with someone who wants nothing to do with the most important figure in his life now? Tough questions that require radical honesty and, sadly, the answers could lead toward the relationship ending. Some chasms are too difficult to bridge.

I truly, truly hope this works out for both of you in the end.


----------



## jaquen

Reading more of the thread...

Understand that there is a major difference between a service going christian and one whose day to day life is steeped in trappings of overt belief. 

If you're a christian who goes to church once or twice a week, and your spiritual practice doesn't extend much further than that, it's going to be very possible to live a life with someone of a totally different faith, or no faith at all. These kinds of mixed marriages aren't all that uncommon.

If you're a believer, however, who walks out most of the precepts and teachings of day to day living? You're going to be praying for and/or with your spouse, worshipping together, attending church together, raising your children up with the knowledge of who you believe God to be, it will affect the things you consider "right" or "wrong", etc. You might find yourself longing to have a partner who doesn't just tolerate your beliefs, and you theirs, but who is vitally, actively involved in your spiritual walk; who isn't just spouse, but spiritual partner. And yes, elephant in the room here, someone you believe is heading into eternity with you.

I have friends who are agnostic, of other faiths, or don't believe at all. I'm open with my faith, but I don't push it on them. Our differences aren't an issue. But with my wife? Could never happen. She's my life partner. We would have to be on the same road in this.

VMS did a great job outlining this perspective from the other side. She said it was a big issue to even see a bible in her spouse's possession. So the split on this is far from just being an issue for the believing spouse. 

This can work IF your spouse is more of the service christian, the kind that keeps their religions relegated more to Sunday, following general moral rules, and keeping their views mostly to themselves. Truth be told, many people are, if not most. 

But if your, and anyone else's spouse, becomes the kind who lives specifically Christ centered life, with all the fixings? That is a much, much bigger issue.


----------



## Shiksagoddess

Dani, it sounds to me if you are not so much concerned that your husband has found religion, but you are afraid of the change it might bring. Change is frightening, particularly if the relationship has been rock solid until now.

I think it is probably premature to label your marriage "on the rocks," unless there is another underlying problem you have not shared.

Take a deep breath and calm down. Be an objective observer of your husband and relationship. Ask yourself "how much of our lives have really changed?" How much am I willing to bend with, and how much will I not be able to tolerate?

I know you want answers to your questions right now, but those answers may not be available. If your husband's faith and practice of that faith is still forming, it would be unrealistic and unfair to demand answers to questions about "where is your faith going to take us?"

Marriage is about growth and change together; I think it would serve you well to be flexible enough to allow him to explore his spirituality, even if yours doesn't match.

Case in point: I am a Wiccan married to an Orthodox Jew. Before we married, my husband and I spent four years discussing our belief systems and how those beliefs would affect our lives as a married couple. Over the years, our beliefs - and practices of those beliefs - have changed and thankfully, we have been flexible enough to cope.

We cope by utilizing the #1 Rule for a Happy Marriage: Absolute respect for the spouse. There are a few things in Judaism I just can't roll with. I respect my spouse for his beliefs even if I can't share them. Likewise, my spouse respects me for my own beliefs.

In short, if you cannot be flexible enough to respect and support your spouse for exploration and growth in his spirituality, your relationship will stagnate. If he cannot respect your choice to not share his beliefs, then your marriage becomes a battleground.

I sincerely hope you both have the fortitude and respect to accept the changes to come.


----------



## Starstarfish

I having a really hard time with your conclusion, Jaquen. That after laying out this beautiful flowing verse all about the glory of a Christian marriage based on a personal walk with Christ, that your conclusion for the OP is either get with the program or potentially face a divorce.

Or that if the don't divorce, it's probably because the husband is a bad Christian who just isn't it his faith. He's not rearly living it.

Honestly, both those posts seem to only exist as a way to brag about the superiority of your marriage as an example of "proper Christian behavior" and extort people for not coming to faith earlier in life and therefore making it a major tenant in who they choose to marry.


----------



## CainJ

I did not read the others posts. However, I am in the same boat as you -cept it was my wife. From my personal (LIVE) experience, this is probably doomed to fail. I am usually an optimist on most issues, but this one I will fall short. LIke you, we discussed religion briefily and agreed to respect others, yet a couple years later she had a "conversion" (or w/e they call it) and to day 11yrs later, it has been nothing short of stressful living. Almost "roommate" effect. We no longer talk, as we have nothing much in common, since everything she wants to talk about is god related, there i no more intimacy, since we got married via JOP, and the catholic church does not recognize that as married, so she see's herself living in sin.. and there are financial issues since she does not work.

I've decided the big "D". I have spoken to a few people in the same situation, they all agree, once the religious overbearing aspect hits, it is a tough ride, and eventually it doesn't work.

In the beginning we agreed to respect each others faith, but it is overbearing. I am on your side. This type of relationship rarely works. I found most of Aspydad's (bible thumping) post a little offensive, as this is not the topic of finding "god" but failing the marriage - breaking promises, and what options she should take regarding it. She did nothing wrong, and now feels betrayed - criticizing her because she does not feel the same "strength" (or belief as him) is discrimination, and not addressing her issue.

I am spiritual, but it doesn't affect how I treat my wife. And I am sure I have exhausted all my options of being patient(my friends and family think I put up with too much, but I follow my vows I made - a promise. but enough is enough), like her husband, my wife too, goes to church all the time now, refuses to work. YES, there is a pattern here. It is a very common situation. Something "pops" and poof, everything is god this and that, and the marriage goes way side, along with the families livelihood. 

I have dealt with her for 8yrs now - My suggestion to you, is if you see no change, you might want to consider the alternative. I've lost my business because of her - while I do not blame her (I could always so no), it is the fact that she puts me in situations that she knows she should not. And I fear your husband will do the same. As you mentioned, he is already stressing the business out. Don't let it go to far. Or you will find yourself paycheck-to-paycheck, and worse, a broken heart.


Listen to Poobear, VMS and SoSadIAm, 

They are correct. That is how we did it in the beginning, but she let religion take over. Some people here I noticed do not understand the damage "unhealthy-obsession" with religion can be (doctors diagnosed my wife with an OCD of Religion, I did not know that was a disorder!!), What they fail to realize is that your husband is on a path of taking his religious believes to an unhealthy level, and will knock you down if you interfere.

Keep in touch, I would like to know how things go... 
I chose the big D, I don't like living like roommates anymore - I am someone too. and you are to. Just remember that!


----------



## HypnoHealer

Guy drunk: God answering a prayer? God giving the lesson: Judge not lest ye be judged?

When the Bible is used like legal rulings to give precedence for behavior, and I find that is how it is too often used, it is more crutch than a gateway to enlightenment.

Do you go to his work? Eat lunch together? Ask the employees how they would move the business forward?

I do not believe in astrology, but read my horoscope every day. I find it a way to self examine my life, beliefs and to remind me to look. You might find going to church to be a similar experience. From time to time, I go to church, go sit with zen monks and listen to one speak. Messages from God?

I am God. So are you. So what?

Life is lessons. Get the lesson, or stay after school and get the lesson again ( more intensely). Nothing to do with the Bible. You can randomly open any book, blindly put your finger on the page and read. Those books are as much a work of God as the Bible etc. Just tools for us to examine our own lives.

Organized religion, like government is good in theory, but terrible in practice.

Note: I am about as far from being a Christian as can be.


----------



## ArdwenHeart

I may be wrong, but I get the feeling you may have some underlying issues with religion or religious people. You may need to re-examine your biases and expectations of what it means to "get religion". Just because a person is suddenly seeing a greater design or plan does not mean they necessarily go straight into judgement mode. It just means that they begin to have faith that things are working out to a greater goal and purpose. That they have no true understanding of the purpose, but that they are willing to endure trials and accept victory in the name of ultimate good. Again, many, many people have developed certain biases against religion based on their feelings of receiving judgement from people who claim the label of "Christian". Be sure your reactions are based on real reasoning and not on what certain people have done to give you a certain perception of what "religious people" behave like.


----------



## EleGirl

Have any of you noticed that the OP posted 2 times in early January and has not returned? she's gone already.


----------



## RAYMOND

The marriage is not doomed Dani as it will be your choice. The scripture says if an unbeliever is happy to dwell with you don't seperate.

From the scriptures he will receive instruction to love you, understand you and care for you but in no way is he instructed to seperate from you. God is a God of love. Really the ball is in your court. I am thrilled personally that he has found Christ. If you feel guilty regarding his life style it doesn't make his lifestyle wrong.

If he has become a true believer in Christ he will not be religious in the wrong sense. It is not really about religion but about faith in Christ. It is a wonderful thing.


----------



## changedbeliefs

Vega said:


> Tolerance is a very Christian principle.


You HAVE to be kidding me, right? "Tolerance" isn't a hallmark of ANY religion, let alone Christianity. The Bible orders evangelism; that is, a good Christian's responsibility is to spread the faith, which includes making sure you tell people that they will go to hell if they don't follow its values. Keep in mind, that pesky commandment about not following other gods, so if you're religious, but not to the Christian god, you're going to hell. Sound like tolerance to you?

On the OP's particular topic, my issue would not be with his suddenly being a churchgoer. My reaction to this, and my attitude toward any such story from a religious person, is that this isn't critical thinking, this isn't intelligent perspective. Quite the opposite, I don't know, call it "wishful" thinking, "woo-woo," or I could probably use more pejorative terms. It's a desperation, it's something people do when they either don't want to take control/accountability, or can't. Your husband needed some "sign" to help him? And a drunk guy in a car was the answer to his prayers? This is DELUSION. He wanted a sign, he would have found it ANYWHERE, including in NOTHING. No matter what, after his "diligent prayer," he would have spent that whole day looking for the "signs," and eventually would have crafted just about anything into his "answer, and then proclaimed "God!"


----------



## changedbeliefs

RAYMOND said:


> From the scriptures he will receive instruction to love you, understand you and care for you but in no way is he instructed to seperate from you. God is a God of love. Really the ball is in your court. I am thrilled personally that he has found Christ. If you feel guilty regarding his life style it doesn't make his lifestyle wrong.
> 
> If he has become a true believer in Christ he will not be religious in the wrong sense. It is not really about religion but about faith in Christ. It is a wonderful thing.


OR, he may pull out this little gem:

"Ephesians 5:22: Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord."

and suddenly command her to be some subservient slave wife to him. Which brings me back to my favorite saying in all the world lately: "You don't need religion to justify good ideas; you need it to justify the bad ones." Now that "God is on his side" and is answering his prayers, who knows what's on the table for him to try to claim is "God's will."

What no believer here is going to understand, is that to critical thinkers, to non-believers, "people of faith" are virtually indistinguishable from the people in the insane asylum. You hear voices, you claim to be getting signs from beyond, you believe you can close your eyes and think thoughts and that your god will subsequently change reality based on your requests. Believers rise up, like you, and claim that "having faith" is some ethereal achievement, you are "thrilled" that he's "found Christ" as if it's truly an accomplishment. Deciding you're being watched over by an imaginary being is dysfunctional, I'm sorry, it just is. Tell me how it's different than deciding the Loch Ness Monster exists, or Big Foot, but now add in that those beings are actually personally interested in your life and well-being? Gah, I can't even continue, I can only imagine the half-****ed justifications you'll start ringing off...


----------



## changedbeliefs

I offer this to help you see how critical thinkers see "faith":



> “Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals. It's our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. ... Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated.” - Christopher Hitchens


----------



## MidlifeWife

It is amazing that your husband views the clear misfortune of another (evidence of alcoholism-- which could be the result of mental illness or trauma-- and could ultimately become the result of some serious and life threatening health conditions like liver failure, kidney failure, neuropathy or heart failure to name just a few) as God's personal favor to *him* to make his job of laying off an employee easier on *him.* Yes, he had to lay off the alcoholic employee. But to view it as a gift from God requires some pretty amazing mental gymnastics and no small degree of selfishness. I am thinking his new found religiosity will be short-lived, because the next unlucky bounce he personally experiences will become evidence that God doesn't exist. If you want to continue your relationship with him, that is up to you. You didn't mention children so, if you don't want to continue the marriage because you don't respect his values (and I can't say I would blame you) it wouldn't be that difficult to move on. If you want to continue the marriage, I would try to keep the lines of communication open and discuss what you both expect from each other now that he has found God. It will help make your decision easier.


----------



## ConanHub

changedbeliefs said:


> OR, he may pull out this little gem:
> 
> "Ephesians 5:22: Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord."
> 
> and suddenly command her to be some subservient slave wife to him. Which brings me back to my favorite saying in all the world lately: "You don't need religion to justify good ideas; you need it to justify the bad ones." Now that "God is on his side" and is answering his prayers, who knows what's on the table for him to try to claim is "God's will."
> 
> What no believer here is going to understand, is that to critical thinkers, to non-believers, "people of faith" are virtually indistinguishable from the people in the insane asylum. You hear voices, you claim to be getting signs from beyond, you believe you can close your eyes and think thoughts and that your god will subsequently change reality based on your requests. Believers rise up, like you, and claim that "having faith" is some ethereal achievement, you are "thrilled" that he's "found Christ" as if it's truly an accomplishment. Deciding you're being watched over by an imaginary being is dysfunctional, I'm sorry, it just is. Tell me how it's different than deciding the Loch Ness Monster exists, or Big Foot, but now add in that those beings are actually personally interested in your life and well-being? Gah, I can't even continue, I can only imagine the half-****ed justifications you'll start ringing off...


Dude you crack me up!&#55357;&#56833;&#55357;&#56833;&#55357;&#56833;

Are you in a satisfying and successful ltr? Just wondering because you don't seem to happy.

Maybe faith is a desirable genetic trait for evolution. The majority of the population of the planet believe in some diety. 

If , evolutionarily speaking, faith was an undesirable trait for the survival of preferred species, why is it so prolific?

Why was a guy like me so sexually attractive to females of all beliefs?

How come I beat out so much competition in the mating arena if a faith trait is so undesirable?

From a purely logical stand point, faith is a strong and desirable trait, chosen by most potential mates for reproduction. Otherwise, there would be a much smaller % in the human gene pool.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Married but Happy

ConanHub said:


> If , evolutionarily speaking, faith was an undesirable trait for the survival of preferred species, why is it so prolific?


Most likely, faith is (on balance) a non-detrimental/non-beneficial side effect of another evolved trait that does have survival value. One such hypothesized trait is the survival advantage children gain when they unquestioningly believe in and obey authority, until such time as they are able to gain sufficient experience to avoid or respond to dangerous situations on their own.


----------



## changedbeliefs

ConanHub said:


> Dude you crack me up!&#55357;&#56833;&#55357;&#56833;&#55357;&#56833;
> 
> Are you in a satisfying and successful ltr? Just wondering because you don't seem to happy.
> 
> Maybe faith is a desirable genetic trait for evolution. The majority of the population of the planet believe in some diety.
> 
> If , evolutionarily speaking, faith was an undesirable trait for the survival of preferred species, why is it so prolific?
> 
> Why was a guy like me so sexually attractive to females of all beliefs?
> 
> How come I beat out so much competition in the mating arena if a faith trait is so undesirable?
> 
> From a *purely logical* stand point, faith is a strong and desirable trait, chosen by most potential mates for reproduction. Otherwise, there would be a much smaller % in the human gene pool.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


"purely logical" and "faith" are POLAR OPPOSITES. Let's be clear: "faith" is when you hold a belief that has no evidence to support it. That is not desirable. Next time you're driving, let go of the wheel and just "have faith" that the car will go straight, that god will protect you, see how that works out.

Do you have any idea how many USELESS things evolution hasn't selected out yet? Faith's persistence is not indicative of its usefulness, and it CERTAINLY does not constitute proof of that in which you have faith. God is unproven, that is fact. Moreover, the mere concept of the god that the Bible claims is ludicrous. That god is a sadistic, vindictive, vengeful psychopath, who consistently wreaks death and misfortune upon the beings he created (and apparently messed up) when they don't do as they're told. For the record, though ,the portion of non-religous people in the US is rapidly increasing. Maybe "evolution" is starting to select you people out...


----------



## changedbeliefs

daisybush said:


> Its good your husband become religious, explain him being religious is good thing but he should also maintain relation healthy way with you.


How dismissive. She states she does not follow religion, why would she tell him it's good that he's religious? Your telling her, so matter-of-factly that it's good he's religious, is tantamount to telling her, "your husband is now good, and you're not." She clearly does NOT think that it's a good thing, which puts her in the company of MILLIONS of other people. Never ceases to amaze me how blind religious people are to their judgmental nature.


----------



## Pooh Bear

changedbeliefs said:


> You HAVE to be kidding me, right? "Tolerance" isn't a hallmark of ANY religion, let alone Christianity. The Bible orders evangelism; that is, a good Christian's responsibility is to spread the faith, which includes making sure you tell people that they will go to hell if they don't follow its values. Keep in mind, that pesky commandment about not following other gods, so if you're religious, but not to the Christian god, you're going to hell. Sound like tolerance to you?
> 
> On the OP's particular topic, my issue would not be with his suddenly being a churchgoer. My reaction to this, and my attitude toward any such story from a religious person, is that this isn't critical thinking, this isn't intelligent perspective. Quite the opposite, I don't know, call it "wishful" thinking, "woo-woo," or I could probably use more pejorative terms. It's a desperation, it's something people do when they either don't want to take control/accountability, or can't. Your husband needed some "sign" to help him? And a drunk guy in a car was the answer to his prayers? This is DELUSION. He wanted a sign, he would have found it ANYWHERE, including in NOTHING. No matter what, after his "diligent prayer," he would have spent that whole day looking for the "signs," and eventually would have crafted just about anything into his "answer, and then proclaimed "God!"


That's a really simplistic understanding of the Bible. The gospels were written to evangalize that is true, but very early Christians had no power in the Roman empire. And there is no hell in the Bible. That would come later as a concept. Paul's letters were to instruct individual churches. The Bible has an extremely complicated history and Christianity is used, as other religions are used, to gain political power.


----------



## Pooh Bear

changedbeliefs said:


> I offer this to help you see how critical thinkers see "faith":


How are you being any different from a fundamentalist Christian who is evangalizing? At least a fundamentalist Christian will probably not insult your intelligence. I have a great respect for all different beliefs including atheists and agnostics. However, some atheists can be just as bad as the people they are complaining about.


----------



## jaquen

Starstarfish said:


> I having a really hard time with your conclusion, Jaquen. That after laying out this beautiful flowing verse all about the glory of a Christian marriage based on a personal walk with Christ, that your conclusion for the OP is either get with the program or potentially face a divorce.
> 
> Or that if the don't divorce, it's probably because the husband is a bad Christian who just isn't it his faith. He's not rearly living it.



I'm sorry that's how you read my posts. But you're entitled to interpret them whatever way you chose.

This change, if lasting, affects them both. I will not blow smoke up anyone's butt; these kinds of conflicts can be potentially relationship killing. Is that a foregone conclusion? No, but lets be real, it's a possibility. She might be just as likely to find his new road as unpalatable as the reverse. I'm not even condoning, or suggesting, divorce here. But I'm not going to stick my head in the clouds and pretend that this outcome isn't a very plausible one, and I believe they (or anyone in a similar situation) should be prepared for the worst case scenario. 

I never called him a "bad christian", or even implied it. But there is a vast difference between a christian who mostly keeps their spirituality an individualized thing, which makes mixed-faith marriages easier, and someone who requires a partner in the faith. How, pray tell, is a christian who longs to implement the spiritual partnered view of marriage, where both are praying, studying and serving together, for what they believe to be the purposes of God, suppose to handle this situation? And what if the unbelieving party has ZERO interest in walking that spiritually partnered road? I'm genuinely curious as to how you'd resolve this conundrum. 



Starstarfish said:


> Honestly, both those posts seem to only exist as a way to brag about the superiority of your marriage as an example of "proper Christian behavior" and extort people for not coming to faith earlier in life and therefore making it a major tenant in who they choose to marry.


I'm confused. How did you, out of two lengthy posts, get the idea that I was bragging about the superiority of my marriage when I actually didn't even once mention any details about my own marriage?


----------



## ConanHub

Married but Happy said:


> Most likely, faith is (on balance) a non-detrimental/non-beneficial side effect of another evolved trait that does have survival value. One such hypothesized trait is the survival advantage children gain when they unquestioningly believe in and obey authority, until such time as they are able to gain sufficient experience to avoid or respond to dangerous situations on their own.


Well put. I thought of that angle as well.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

changedbeliefs said:


> OR, he may pull out this little gem:
> 
> "Ephesians 5:22: Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord."
> 
> and suddenly command her to be some subservient slave wife to him. Which brings me back to my favorite saying in all the world lately: "You don't need religion to justify good ideas; you need it to justify the bad ones." Now that "God is on his side" and is answering his prayers, who knows what's on the table for him to try to claim is "God's will."
> 
> What no believer here is going to understand, is that to critical thinkers, to non-believers, "people of faith" are virtually indistinguishable from the people in the insane asylum. You hear voices, you claim to be getting signs from beyond, you believe you can close your eyes and think thoughts and that your god will subsequently change reality based on your requests. Believers rise up, like you, and claim that "having faith" is some ethereal achievement, you are "thrilled" that he's "found Christ" as if it's truly an accomplishment. Deciding you're being watched over by an imaginary being is dysfunctional, I'm sorry, it just is. Tell me how it's different than deciding the Loch Ness Monster exists, or Big Foot, but now add in that those beings are actually personally interested in your life and well-being? Gah, I can't even continue, I can only imagine the half-****ed justifications you'll start ringing off...


You're rocking some pretty hardcore prosthelytizing there that would revival even the most venomous, fire-and-brimstone judgemental preacher.

Humans. The more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## ConanHub

jaquen said:


> You're rocking some pretty hardcore prosthelytizing there that would revival even the most venomous, fire-and-brimstone judgemental preacher.
> 
> Humans. The more things change, the more they stay the same.


Hey! You just quoted me! &#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MarriedManInHis40s

jaquen said:


> This change, if lasting, affects them both. I will not blow smoke up anyone's butt; these kinds of conflicts can be potentially relationship killing.


I am entirely on the other end of the religious spectrum from jaquen, but otherwise I am in complete agreement with him and I had no issue with anything he said. If one person takes being religious seriously, and the other person takes *NOT* being religious seriously (as I do, and as it sounds like the OP does), then basically you have people with two fundamentally different worldviews about the legitimacy of sources of knowledge, the nature and sources of goodness and morality, etc, etc. That is a HUGE and fundamental conflict and source of incompatibility in a marriage... I can't imagine a bigger one.

If my wife became a Christian of any sort, that would be a massive problem for me, and if she became as serious as the OP's husband is, that would pretty much be a deal breaker. She simply wouldn't be the same person I married. After careful consideration of the evidence, I have decided that religion is delusional nonsense (even if it has evolutionary advantages, that does not make it less delusional), and I have no interest whatsoever in a) revisiting that decision b) being the life partner of a person who has embraced delusional nonsense. 

(likewise, a devoutly religious person thinks that *I* am the misguided one. That's fine, atheists and Christians aren't going away and so are going to have to learn to get along in the public square... but for them to get along in a *marriage*? uh uh).


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedManInHis40s said:


> I am entirely on the other end of the religious spectrum from jaquen, but otherwise I am in complete agreement with him and I had no issue with anything he said. If one person takes being religious seriously, and the other person takes *NOT* being religious seriously (as I do, and as it sounds like the OP does), then basically you have people with two fundamentally different worldviews about the legitimacy of sources of knowledge, the nature and sources of goodness and morality, etc, etc. That is a HUGE and fundamental conflict and source of incompatibility in a marriage... I can't imagine a bigger one.
> 
> If my wife became a Christian of any sort, that would be a massive problem for me, and if she became as serious as the OP's husband is, that would pretty much be a deal breaker. She simply wouldn't be the same person I married. After careful consideration of the evidence, I have decided that religion is delusional nonsense (even if it has evolutionary advantages, that does not make it less delusional), and I have no interest whatsoever in a) revisiting that decision b) being the life partner of a person who has embraced delusional nonsense.
> 
> (likewise, a devoutly religious person thinks that *I* am the misguided one. That's fine, atheists and Christians aren't going away and so are going to have to learn to get along in the public square... but for them to get along in a *marriage*? uh uh).


No. People who have to be right think this way. Some people can be all right with someone else having a different belief system than they do and still make a relationship work. There are plenty of people like that.


----------



## Married but Happy

MarriedManInHis40s and Pooh Bear can both be right - it depends on the people involved in a particular case, their attitudes, and the quality of the relationship to begin with. For some it's clearly a deal breaker, but for others it may be something they can work with.


----------



## Starstarfish

Jesus Christ is the most important figure in my life. I would have never married a woman who didn't have a personal relationship with him as her savior. It would never work because I couldn't be married to someone who didn't share THE single most important part of my life. 

When people use "I" and "my", I assume by default that following comments are personal and autobiographical in nature.

So if you honestly weren't talking about yourself and your wife following that statement, sorry. Otherwise my point stands.

As for how is the faithful in that situation supposed to feel when their marriage isn't what they feel marriage should be on a spiritual level, I have no idea. I have no real answers, as I'm in the same situation myself to a certain degree. Though it wasn't a sudden conversion.

We adopted method #1, we simply no longer discuss religion or related topics and no longer attend church. Does it feel like something is missing? Yes, but the alternative (as you suggested) seems worse.


----------



## MarriedManInHis40s

Pooh Bear said:


> Some people can be all right with someone else having a different belief system than they do and still make a relationship work.


Well, a lot of people can't, because they view religious beliefs and how they are chosen as a core part of a person's identity. This is a lot more important than picking a team to cheer for in the Super Bowl.

I couldn't. Jaquen couldn't. It sounds like the OP couldn't (note the thread title again: she is "sooo not religious"! Three o's in "so"! She sounds pretty sure! )


----------



## ConanHub

MarriedManInHis40s said:


> This is a lot more important than picking a team to cheer for in the Super Bowl. )


Why you gotta rub salt in my wound like that?!!???&#55357;&#56841;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MarriedManInHis40s

ConanHub said:


> Why you gotta rub salt in my wound like that?!!???��
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Tell me about it. Why you no give ball to Lynch? Why? (OK, this is off topic  ).


----------



## JustNeedOpinions

DaniD0706 said:


> So I'm new to this forum but glad I found it. I don't really have anyone to really talk to about this type of situation. So here's the deal.
> 
> My husband has recently, in the last three weeks, become a very strong believer. He had an incident with one of his employees that works for our company that resulted in finding the worker intoxicated in his car before work. He saw this as god answering his prayer because the night before he prayed that god would help him find a way to make sure his guys had enough work so he wouldn't have to lay anyone off. This certain worker was new to the trade and wasn't really up to snuff as it were. Showing up to work intoxicated was grounds for termination thus one less person to have to worry about keeping busy. I saw it as a drunk that was passed out in his car and he got busted but like I said my husband saw it as a gift from god. Ever since he's said he's felt different like he's had the spirit of god flow through him. He reads the bible every night and has made some other changes in a very short period of time. It's been a real shock to me and our relationship. I am not a believer in any way, shape, or form and tried to be supportive in the beginning but now I feel like it's completely changed our marriage because I'm constantly worrying about how he's viewing my words and actions. I know I look at him differently now too.
> When we got married we had discussed our religious views and we were pretty much on the same page. We didn't follow any particular religion and didn't really have any interest in the Christian ideals. Now of course that has all changed. He has started going to church by himself and it kind of makes me angry because owning your own business is busy enough and now he's takes more time away from our family to go to church. I know that's not the right way to view it but that's how I feel. Like I said I'm in no way close to being religious and have no interest at all in any faith so this is all a shock to me. This sudden new found religion has definitely put our marriage on the rocks and all I can think of is the old saying "a family that prays together stays together" so if we are in two different worlds now does that mean our marriage won't work?


The value of anything is how much sacrifice or money you give for it, determined or motivated by how precious it is to YOU. I have read few replies before I thought of chipping in my widow's mite. I will keep it simple and straight to the point, cutting it short in righteousness. If you see your husband as the head of your family, follow him. Even if you don't feel so, fake it. Fake going with him and take advantage of the going to learn is newly found "religion" as you called it. It seems to me your husband has found something more than a religion, he's found relationship with God. A word is enough for the wise.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GTdad

Good discussion, but it may be a bit academic. The OP hasn't logged in for nearly a month.


----------



## norajane

JustNeedOpinions said:


> The value of anything is how much sacrifice or money you give for it, determined or motivated by how precious it is to YOU. I have read few replies before I thought of chipping in my widow's mite. I will keep it simple and straight to the point, cutting it short in righteousness. If you see your husband as the head of your family, follow him. Even if you don't feel so, fake it. Fake going with him and take advantage of the going to learn is newly found "religion" as you called it. It seems to me your husband has found something more than a religion, he's found relationship with God. A word is enough for the wise.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Fake it? As an atheist, I couldn't "fake" such a thing. 

Is it so hard to understand that some of us think God is as real as Zeus, unicorns, and magic beans? And that someone who now has a relationship with a mythical creature or magic beans is not desirable or compatible as a life partner, especially if we married when both of us thought god = unicorns and magic beans and now one has changed?

I couldn't fake accepting my SO starting to believe unicorns exist, and that he has a personal relationship with a unicorn, and that I should go to the unicorn palace to learn more about his non-existing unicorns.


----------



## MarriedManInHis40s

norajane said:


> I couldn't fake accepting my SO starting to believe unicorns exist, and that he has a personal relationship with a unicorn, and that I should go to the unicorn palace to learn more about his non-existing unicorns.


:lol: :iagree:


----------



## tacoma

woundedwarrior said:


> I can speak as someone that is a Christian, if he truly has turned himself over to God now, your marriage will no longer work.


As someone who is an atheist, thank you for pointing this out.

There are way too many people in this thread making light of this change.

If her husband truly has had an intellectual conversion to Christianity their marriage is most likely doomed.

Square peg/Round hole.


----------



## tacoma

JustNeedOpinions said:


> If you see your husband as the head of your family, follow him. Even if you don't feel so, *fake it.*


----------



## Thundarr

I don't buy the doom and gloom or the notion that people have to be extremes of intolerance. I love my wife whether she's god fearing or not and it's that simple. Our oldest son and his wife are devought christians yet our middle son is an athiest and our youngest goes to church sometimes. I love them exactly the same amount each. The concept of loving or not loving my wife based on if she loses her faith is ridiculousness. If she became energized and wanted to go to church all of the time then I'd go with her. Currently we don't go very often though.


----------



## Pooh Bear

GTdad said:


> Good discussion, but it may be a bit academic. The OP hasn't logged in for nearly a month.


Love academic. We can have academic.


----------



## changedbeliefs

jaquen said:


> You're rocking some pretty hardcore prosthelytizing there that would revival even the most venomous, fire-and-brimstone judgemental preacher.


Au contraire. Hear about this guy who punched a teenager in the chest and "crumpled him....just crumpled him" for "not taking the Lord seriously"?

Pastor: I punched a kid ‘as hard as I could’ for ‘not taking the Lord serious’

Or how about the pastor who said we could have an "AIDS-free Christmas" if we just listened to the Bible: "Because if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.”

Arizona pastor predicts ‘AIDS-free Christmas’ if all gays are killed, as God commands

Or this guy who is simply 100% sure that people that don't believe what he does are simply doomed to hell (ya know, torture, fire, eternal damnation - gee thanks!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAen2NPDr8A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TedHVzZdkSw

Religion is used as justification for some of the most horrific notions floating around the world today. These are just the tip of the iceberg. I'm prosyletizing? Yeah, for REASON, and LOGIC, if you want to call it that. Atheists don't preach "fire and brimstone," we teach real life, here and now, people, each other, and an utter lack of either supernatural directives, punishments or rewards.


----------



## MarriedManInHis40s

Pooh Bear said:


> No. People who have to be right think this way. Some people can be all right with someone else having a different belief system than they do and still make a relationship work. There are plenty of people like that.


To follow up on this point, I don't know what it means to "have to be right", but I certainly *try* to be right.... don't you? Doesn't everyone? Not that it matters to me, but you make it sound like using one's mind to consider the evidence and draw conclusions (ie: use reason) is some kind of character flaw.

BTW, @changedbeliefs, just my two cents but I don't think this is the right venue for the debate you're engaging in. We atheists have our reasons for believing what we believe. Religious people have theirs. This isn't really the right place to explore/debate those reasons... there are about five million other places on the internet where people can have that discussion if they want it. (likewise, this isn't really the right place for Christians to assert, as several here have, that the mixed-faith relationship problem would be easily solved if atheists could only just smarten up, abandon their values, and accept that they're completely wrong). I think this discussion should be best kept to the area of how mixed-faith relationships can (or can't) work.


----------



## ConanHub

MarriedManInHis40s said:


> To follow up on this point, I don't know what it means to "have to be right", but I certainly *try* to be right.... don't you? Doesn't everyone? Not that it matters to me, but you make it sound like using one's mind to consider the evidence and draw conclusions (ie: use reason) is some kind of character flaw.
> 
> BTW, @changedbeliefs, just my two cents but I don't think this is the right venue for the debate you're engaging in. We atheists have our reasons for believing what we believe. Religious people have theirs. This isn't really the right place to explore/debate those reasons... there are about five million other places on the internet where people can have that discussion if they want it. (likewise, this isn't really the right place for Christians to assert, as several here have, that the mixed-faith relationship problem would be easily solved if atheists could only just smarten up, abandon their values, and accept that they're completely wrong). I think this discussion should be best kept to the area of how mixed-faith relationships can (or can't) work.


There goes someone else spouting logic! &#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

Starstarfish said:


> .
> 
> So if you honestly weren't talking about yourself and your wife following that statement, sorry. Otherwise my point stands.


In the context of the subject of this topic, I outlined what _my personal criteria _for marriage is. No different than the several people who have declared they could never marry a believer because they take _unbelief_ seriously. There were no discussions about the personal, intimate details of my marriage, and certainly nothing to suggest that I was, to quote you, bragging about the "superiority of [my] marriage" as some shining example of "proper christian behavior". And the notion that I was "extorting people for coming into the faith later in life"? Only God knows where you got that. At least a dozen people in this thread have shared their various boundaries within marriage when it comes to this topic, and most of them have shared vastly more intimate details than I have in this thread. For some odd reason, you picked out a small segment of my post and blew it enormously out of proportion. 

You are projecting. 



Starstarfish said:


> .
> 
> 
> We adopted method #1, we simply no longer discuss religion or related topics and no longer attend church. Does it feel like something is missing? Yes, but the alternative (as you suggested) seems worse.



I didn't suggest an alternative. I outlined possibilities that people face in these circumstances, and a relationship ending is a real possibility. Especially for believers and non-believers alike who decide that "method #1" isn't palatable. Not everyone is willing to bury the topic of their belief/disbelief, as various people in this very thread have outlined, people of all different perspectives. I couldn't do it. VMS couldn't do it. MarriedManInHis40s wouldn't do it. It would be foolish for me to ignore that possibility.


----------



## unbelievable

There are worse things a husband might become involved in than religion. He could have joined the Hell's Angels, started cooking meth, got into kiddie porn, just got into the neighbor's wife, or invested all the family's money in Blockbuster.


----------



## jaquen

changedbeliefs said:


> Religion is used as justification for some of the most horrific notions floating around the world today.


Human beings have never lacked for finding justifications to do the most abhorrent things to one another. Plenty of people have said, and done, horrifying things in the name of their perception of God. And plenty of non-believers have too, for reasons that have nothing to do with religion or spirituality. 

You seem focused on this one bee in the bonnet. I see many. Such is life.


----------



## jaquen

unbelievable said:


> invested all the family's money in Blockbuster.


Hey, that would have been an excellent idea if they cashed out sometime in the late 90s/early 00s!


----------



## doureallycare2

Hi Everyone,

Been a while since Ive been on but saw this post come up in my email and just had to check it out..

My first thought was "did you talk to him about your issues"

But after thinking about it and reading the response you have here (many of them very good), I just would like to add on simple but true thing. No matter what relationship your in or will get in..... people don't stay the same.... they develop new interest.. they get sick... they change their likes and dislikes. they get old... They get hurt....

What is your commitment level? If you don't have a high commitment standard, be truthful and let him know this may be a deal breaker for you as well as anything else that comes up that "you" aren't sure you can live with.

I'm not meaning that as sarcastic as it sounds, sorry.. I think there are and should be some things that you say "no" that's not going to be acceptable behavior from you... but in a partnership there are more things that although you don't believe or may think the same on them (politics, religion etc..) you not only accept but participate if you can, that's called love, commitment, caring.....Look to see what it can add to your life or take away and make a decision that way....


----------



## changedbeliefs

jaquen said:


> Human beings have never lacked for finding justifications to do the most abhorrent things to one another. Plenty of people have said, and done, horrifying things in the name of their perception of God. And plenty of non-believers have too, for reasons that have nothing to do with religion or spirituality.
> 
> You seem focused on this one bee in the bonnet. I see many. Such is life.


I think it would be a curious exercise...and I'm not sure exactly how you could go about gathering the data...to determine just with what - at the heart of it - people have tried to justify "bad behavior." The thing about non-believers, though, is that their non-belief can't really justify anything. Specifically, "atheism" doesnt have any commands. There isn't an edict of atheism that says, "so go break the laws, kill people, etc..., because there is no god." It just says, "I don't believe in a god." What you do from there becomes personal accountability. It means you CAN'T pawn off your values, actions, or morals on anything else but yourself. That's in contrast to a religious person who could say, "look, I'd like to support gay marriage but, hey, the Bible says its wrong and they're going to hell....sorry." That's the distinction of religion: it's spouted as if it's RIGHT and expected to be taken as so, without question, and you can't deny that there is a taboo on calling that out. I can't think of anything else that someone could use to justify evil that is so protected and would be supported by so many.

If one man kills a gay man and says simply, "because I hate those ****," that's not really justification, that's simply the reason, it's personal accountability. If he said, "my dog told me to," that's an attempt at justification, but it'd be dismissed and he'd be wrapped in a white coat and sent away. If he said, "God told me to," that's an attempt at justification, too, and to the point, is a realm many people consider unimpeachable, if not still inadequate. However, realize MANY people agree with that (see my previous link about the preacher who believes the Bible mandates such). Think of the law recently (AZ?) that wants to allow people to discriminate if it is based on your religious beliefs. I feel I should emphasize: *There are people that want to be able to MISTREAT certain people, based on whatever, orientation, race, gender - which isn't allowed for any other reason in our legal system - and specifically present their religion as the justification.* 

OK, to the topic specifically, I encourage OP and others to watch these videos. If you don't think that this conflict is very real, and MATERIAL to this relationship, think again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1DH3XOK4EI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0AeTV4a_wI

For a freethinker, critical thinker, who has intently come to the state of non-belief in a god, religion, etc..., to embark on a serious, long-term relationship with someone who is embracing (and suddenly so, no less) religion and the beliefs implied therein, is a serious, serious conflict, and should be specifically addressed.


----------



## Pooh Bear

changedbeliefs said:


> Au contraire. Hear about this guy who punched a teenager in the chest and "crumpled him....just crumpled him" for "not taking the Lord seriously"?
> 
> Pastor: I punched a kid ‘as hard as I could’ for ‘not taking the Lord serious’
> 
> Or how about the pastor who said we could have an "AIDS-free Christmas" if we just listened to the Bible: "Because if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.”
> 
> Arizona pastor predicts ‘AIDS-free Christmas’ if all gays are killed, as God commands
> 
> Or this guy who is simply 100% sure that people that don't believe what he does are simply doomed to hell (ya know, torture, fire, eternal damnation - gee thanks!)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAen2NPDr8A
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TedHVzZdkSw
> 
> Religion is used as justification for some of the most horrific notions floating around the world today. These are just the tip of the iceberg. I'm prosyletizing? Yeah, for REASON, and LOGIC, if you want to call it that. Atheists don't preach "fire and brimstone," we teach real life, here and now, people, each other, and an utter lack of either supernatural directives, punishments or rewards.


Many aethists don't preach anything. They just live their lives and don't worry about whether some believes in God or not unless it interferes with their lives. You are being judgemental. And taking extreme cases of religious absurdity. Are there religious idiots? Of course. Doesn't mean that everybody is.


----------



## Pooh Bear

changedbeliefs said:


> I think it would be a curious exercise...and I'm not sure exactly how you could go about gathering the data...to determine just with what - at the heart of it - people have tried to justify "bad behavior." The thing about non-believers, though, is that their non-belief can't really justify anything. Specifically, "atheism" doesnt have any commands. There isn't an edict of atheism that says, "so go break the laws, kill people, etc..., because there is no god." It just says, "I don't believe in a god." What you do from there becomes personal accountability. It means you CAN'T pawn off your values, actions, or morals on anything else but yourself. That's in contrast to a religious person who could say, "look, I'd like to support gay marriage but, hey, the Bible says its wrong and they're going to hell....sorry." That's the distinction of religion: it's spouted as if it's RIGHT and expected to be taken as so, without question, and you can't deny that there is a taboo on calling that out. I can't think of anything else that someone could use to justify evil that is so protected and would be supported by so many.
> 
> If one man kills a gay man and says simply, "because I hate those ****," that's not really justification, that's simply the reason, it's personal accountability. If he said, "my dog told me to," that's an attempt at justification, but it'd be dismissed and he'd be wrapped in a white coat and sent away. If he said, "God told me to," that's an attempt at justification, too, and to the point, is a realm many people consider unimpeachable, if not still inadequate. However, realize MANY people agree with that (see my previous link about the preacher who believes the Bible mandates such). Think of the law recently (AZ?) that wants to allow people to discriminate if it is based on your religious beliefs. I feel I should emphasize: *There are people that want to be able to MISTREAT certain people, based on whatever, orientation, race, gender - which isn't allowed for any other reason in our legal system - and specifically present their religion as the justification.*
> 
> OK, to the topic specifically, I encourage OP and others to watch these videos. If you don't think that this conflict is very real, and MATERIAL to this relationship, think again:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1DH3XOK4EI
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0AeTV4a_wI
> 
> For a freethinker, critical thinker, who has intently come to the state of non-belief in a god, religion, etc..., to embark on a serious, long-term relationship with someone who is embracing (and suddenly so, no less) religion and the beliefs implied therein, is a serious, serious conflict, and should be specifically addressed.


Right. Religion has been used for centuries to justify all sorts of bad behavior. Yet, in China you can get thrown in to jail for being religious. Atheists have their own justifications. That's a human trait.


----------



## jaquen

changedbeliefs said:


> I think it would be a curious exercise...and I'm not sure exactly how you could go about gathering the data...to determine just with what - at the heart of it - people have tried to justify "bad behavior." The thing about non-believers, though, is that their non-belief can't really justify anything. Specifically, "atheism" doesnt have any commands. There isn't an edict of atheism that says, "so go break the laws, kill people, etc..., because there is no god." It just says, "I don't believe in a god." What you do from there becomes personal accountability. It means you CAN'T pawn off your values, actions, or morals on anything else but yourself. That's in contrast to a religious person who could say, "look, I'd like to support gay marriage but, hey, the Bible says its wrong and they're going to hell....sorry." That's the distinction of religion: it's spouted as if it's RIGHT and expected to be taken as so, without question, and you can't deny that there is a taboo on calling that out. I can't think of anything else that someone could use to justify evil that is so protected and would be supported by so many.
> 
> If one man kills a gay man and says simply, "because I hate those ****," that's not really justification, that's simply the reason, it's personal accountability. If he said, "my dog told me to," that's an attempt at justification, but it'd be dismissed and he'd be wrapped in a white coat and sent away. If he said, "God told me to," that's an attempt at justification, too, and to the point, is a realm many people consider unimpeachable, if not still inadequate. However, realize MANY people agree with that (see my previous link about the preacher who believes the Bible mandates such). Think of the law recently (AZ?) that wants to allow people to discriminate if it is based on your religious beliefs. I feel I should emphasize: *There are people that want to be able to MISTREAT certain people, based on whatever, orientation, race, gender - which isn't allowed for any other reason in our legal system - and specifically present their religion as the justification.*
> 
> OK, to the topic specifically, I encourage OP and others to watch these videos. If you don't think that this conflict is very real, and MATERIAL to this relationship, think again:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1DH3XOK4EI
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0AeTV4a_wI
> 
> For a freethinker, critical thinker, who has intently come to the state of non-belief in a god, religion, etc..., to embark on a serious, long-term relationship with someone who is embracing (and suddenly so, no less) religion and the beliefs implied therein, is a serious, serious conflict, and should be specifically addressed.


OK.


----------



## MarriedManInHis40s

Pooh Bear said:


> Many aethists don't preach anything. They just live their lives and don't worry about whether *someone *believes in God or not unless it interferes with their lives.


I think, _in most cases, with one very important exception I'll get to in a minute_, that would describe me. I'm no longer interested in debating this subject with religious people, _unless_ they are using a religious justification to advocate for public policies which I think are unfair, harmful, and against my values (and which could not be justified without religious reasons). Then I'll speak up and defend my secular morality, coming from the Enlightenment tradition of empathy, human rights, yada yada, and let the chips fall where they may. Unless someone wants to put someone else in an orange jumpsuit and cut their head off for disagreeing, religious folks and atheists can debate these kinds of subjects in the public sphere, accept if they lose the political battle (and by the way, the secularists are pretty steadily winning in the Western world at least), and then come back for the next round. I have learned to live with religious people in society even if their influence sometimes results in policies I disagree with.

The exception I make is for my spouse and life partner. Someone might be religious out of a simple sense of cultural tradition (ie: they don't take their religion particularly seriously and their opinions on any practical matter differ in no important way from mine), but I would still find that kind of passive intellectual conformity very alien and unattractive in a partner. If you don't really believe, then have the courage to say so and live so. If my spouse actually took religion seriously, that would be even worse. Even if their beliefs don't "interfere" with my life in any way (they never talk about it, they don't drag me to church, etc) I would consider them to be bizarrely and inexplicably in thrall to weak-minded, delusional nonsense that I have absolutely no time for, and how can I respect that? 

tldr; I can live with religion in society. I can't live with it in my spouse.

(I think this applies to a few other "spiritual/new agey" things as well. The wife of a friend of mine has gotten into "energy healing" in a really big way, ie: writing a book about it, changing her career to practice it and train others, can't help herself from offering you some energy healing if you mention any health ailment or bad habit at a party, etc. I politely asked her about the book because I hadn't heard she was writing one, and she said "yes, my husband never mentions this to his friends because he's embarrassed by it" (as I know he is, because we've talked about it during the alarming initial conversion phase). Now, that to me sounds like trouble.)


----------



## Conan

It's YOU with problem lady - NOT him!


----------



## tacoma

doureallycare2 said:


> What is your commitment level? If you don't have a high commitment standard, be truthful and let him know this may be a deal breaker for you as well as anything else that comes up that "you" aren't sure you can live with.


Commitment level?

You sound like he's blowing off their date night to take up karaoke on the weekends.

This isn't just something "that comes up"

IF her husband has just suddenly changed his entire worldview to one which she cannot share and in fact actively is against then this has nothing to do with her "commitment level".

This affects EVERYTHING important in a relationship.
Children, social life, sex life, mutual respect,...everything.

It's a major deal and not very promising for their marriage.

*Yes I know this is an academic discussion due to zombie thread.


----------



## tacoma

Conan said:


> It's YOU with problem lady - NOT him!


Why is it her problem that he has just completely changed the parameters of their relationship and his own worldview/character?

Why is it her problem that he has just become a different man than the one she agreed to marry?

She didn't change anything, he did.

Why is she at fault?


----------



## soccermom2three

tacoma said:


> Commitment level?
> 
> You sound like he's blowing off their date night to take up karaoke on the weekends.
> 
> This isn't just something "that comes up"
> 
> IF her husband has just suddenly changed his entire worldview to one which she cannot share and in fact actively is against then this has nothing to do with her "commitment level".
> 
> This affects EVERYTHING important in a relationship.
> Children, social life, sex life, mutual respect,...everything.
> 
> It's a major deal and not very promising for their marriage.
> 
> *Yes I know this is an academic discussion due to zombie thread.


Years ago my paternal grandparents, aunt and cousins all became "born again" Christians. Jesus said this and Jesus said that. Praise this, praise that. The music I listened to was going to send me to hell. You could not have a normal conversation with them. They were unbearable to be around.

I can only imagine how worse it would be if this happened within a marriage. I don't think I could live with someone that is a fanatic.


----------



## labuffalo

Ewww....Please do your husband a favor and divorce him. Apparently your marriage was built on nothing short of lies and deceit anyways. How anyone can divorce their spouse because they found the light and now believe in something instead of nothing; that life has no purpose other than to behave like absolute savages and the animals around us is deplorable. What's even more disgusting is your disdain for him and others like him that think differently and beyond most "normal" people's sense of compassion. That said, I'm not surprised I've seen the attitude and behaviors of your kind towards those who believe in a something. 

Yes, do him a favor and divorce him.


----------



## frootloop

labuffalo said:


> What's even more disgusting is your disdain for him and others like him that think differently


Your disdain for others is very Christian, on the other hand - totally different - I can totally see how your imaginary friend is helping you be a better person.


----------



## RaiderGirl

I have a family member whose wife "Found Jesus". His life has been unbearable. A religious person puts a great deal of importance in their faith so daily decisions, comments etc tend to become faith based. We couldn't watch the news without some comment from her connecting even the stock market with God. Anyway, hubby and I talked about it later and he said very plainly that if I cheated on him he would try to understand why and forgive. If I broke the law he would try to understand and help me. If I become an drug addict etc he would forgive and help me. But, if I ever became devote in any faith , he would pack his bags and leave instantly. That is just to give you a taste of how bad the weekend with my relative was. Its ok for one spouse to be faithful and the other not, but if the one that changed the game plan begins to also change their daily life it will become a problem. Talk to him about your definition of respecting each others believes. What actions or comments constitutes disrespect.


----------



## norajane

This topic came up on Gray's Anatomy last week. Christian April is pregnant and they've found a significant issue with the baby in utero that will likely lead to the baby's death during birth or shortly thereafter. 

Her husband is an atheist, is terribly sad about this news, and he wants to talk with April about what is happening to their baby and what they will do. April doesn't want to talk about it and heads to church to pray instead, leaving her husband suffering on his own and feeling shut out because his wife would rather talk to her god about it instead of with him.

I'm sure they'll resolve it all somehow because it's tv, but in real life, this kind of situation would likely tear a couple apart in the end.


----------



## changedbeliefs

labuffalo said:


> Ewww....Please do your husband a favor and divorce him. Apparently your marriage was built on nothing short of lies and deceit anyways. How anyone can divorce their spouse because they found the light and now believe in something instead of nothing; that life has no purpose other than to behave like absolute savages and the animals around us is deplorable. What's even more disgusting is your disdain for him and others like him that think differently and beyond most "normal" people's sense of compassion. That said, I'm not surprised I've seen the attitude and behaviors of your kind towards those who believe in a something.
> 
> Yes, do him a favor and divorce him.


What you "believe" in ought to be true, don't you think? And there is NO evidence that it is. But if that's the only thing keeping YOU from behaving like a "savage," then:



> Detective Martin Hart: I mean, can you imagine if people didn't believe, what things they'd get up to?
> 
> Detective Rustin Cohle: Exact same thing they do now. Just out in the open.
> 
> Detective Martin Hart: Bull****. It'd be a ****ing freak show of murder and debauchery and you know it.
> 
> Detective Rustin Cohle: If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of ****; and I'd like to get as many of them out in the open as possible.


----------



## changedbeliefs

Pooh Bear said:


> Many aethists don't preach anything. They just live their lives and don't worry about whether some believes in God or not unless it interferes with their lives. You are being judgemental. And taking extreme cases of religious absurdity. Are there religious idiots? Of course. Doesn't mean that everybody is.


Please point out exactly where I'm being "judgmental" of anyone? And I'm not pointing out extreme cases of religious absurdity, I am calling out logical extensions (or actualy instances) of the horrific consequences of the full application of religion. Said in other words, just because someone doesn't act on every tenet of their religion, doesn't mean that their religion is not awful. There are likely billions of Muslims that do not, and would not, fly a plane into a building, but don't kid yourself that many of those DO believe in the tenets that direct it, and condone the actions of those that did. The problem is not, "do people really do this," the problem is, "is there a belief system that presents these problems"? Although the answer is a still-problematic, but somewhat mild "yes, some, but not all" to the first, the answer to the second is an "abso-fricking-lutely."


----------



## RaiderGirl

Spirituality is a connection to the creator however you understand Him, religion is crowd control.


----------



## changedbeliefs

RaiderGirl said:


> Spirituality is a connection to the creator however you understand Him, religion is crowd control.


That's one definition, but one can be "spiritual" (which I take to simply mean the recognition of the "greater-ness" of what is around us: nature, the societal machine, the big picture, if you will) without having to believe in any creator, and certainly not a proper noun personal version. That's one of the statements that theists and religious don't understand is judgmental. They imply atheists are immoral, unspiritual automatons. Go look up the video of Oprah with Diana Nyad: when Nyad stated how she could look at nature and the universe in awe, Oprah said, "well, then I don't call you an atheist." It was offensive. To be very vulgar, it'd be like telling Oprah, "I saw you pee standing up once, so now I don't call you a woman." To insinuate that only theists/religous can know the difference between wrong and right, or be able to consider a sunset beautiful, is arrogant and pompous, and is but one more method by which you can insult an atheist and get this "why are you so angry?" type of attitude. It's because there are many, many ways in which we are insulted, directly and indirectly.


----------



## MarriedManInHis40s

labuffalo said:


> How anyone can divorce their spouse because they found the light and now believe in something instead of nothing; *that life has no purpose other than to behave like absolute savages and the animals around us* is deplorable.



FYI, this is not even remotely close to what atheists actually think or believe.


----------



## ConanHub

frootloop said:


> Another shining example of your Christian values.


He is not representing my God.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

Some posters are projecting and thinking in extremes. New flash; good people will get along with good people no matter their religious beliefs. Extremist will only get along with those who think exactly like they do.


----------



## ConanHub

Thundarr said:


> Some posters are projecting and thinking in extremes. New flash; good people will get along with good people no matter their religious beliefs. Extremist will only get along with those who think exactly like they do.


Mostly truth here.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pooh Bear

*Your disdain for others is very Christian*

That's not true.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*I think it would be a curious exercise...and I'm not sure exactly how you could go about gathering the data...to determine just with what - at the heart of it - people have tried to justify "bad behavior." The thing about non-believers, though, is that their non-belief can't really justify anything. Specifically, "atheism" doesnt have any commands. There isn't an edict of atheism that says, "so go break the laws, kill people, etc..., because there is no god." It just says, "I don't believe in a god." What you do from there becomes personal accountability.* 

What difference does this make really? So you don’t believe in god so your bad behavior is just bad behavior and you have to live with it. Whereas, someone who is religious and uses that religion to commit evil acts may think that it is justified but the society may say otherwise. Religious people also do some of the most compassionate, loving things for religious reasons as well. When you do compassionate, loving things you don’t attribute it to a god. People have been religious for most of history and so you see all the violence and bad things that have been done in the name of religion for most of human existence. But people have changed too. I mean in the Hebrew Bible people were fighting over territory and there was a my God is better than your God sort of stuff was going on. But everybody believed in a God or Goddess. If they had not had God, would they have not fought over territory? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know.

And then political power structures throughout history have used religion to consolidate power. But religion is complicated. People can do the most destructive things or they can do the most loving things in the name of religion. There have been both throughout history. 

People are pretty good at justifying all sorts of bad behavior irregardless of religion. Even when they are religious they can justify behavior that goes against their own religious beliefs.


----------



## Pooh Bear

changedbeliefs said:


> Please point out exactly where I'm being "judgmental" of anyone? And I'm not pointing out extreme cases of religious absurdity, I am calling out logical extensions (or actualy instances) of the horrific consequences of the full application of religion. Said in other words, just because someone doesn't act on every tenet of their religion, doesn't mean that their religion is not awful. There are likely billions of Muslims that do not, and would not, fly a plane into a building, but don't kid yourself that many of those DO believe in the tenets that direct it, and condone the actions of those that did. The problem is not, "do people really do this," the problem is, "is there a belief system that presents these problems"? Although the answer is a still-problematic, but somewhat mild "yes, some, but not all" to the first, the answer to the second is an "abso-fricking-lutely."


Ok. I think this is really judgemental and offensive:

*What no believer here is going to understand, is that to critical thinkers, to non-believers, "people of faith" are virtually indistinguishable from the people in the insane asylum. You hear voices, you claim to be getting signs from beyond, you believe you can close your eyes and think thoughts and that your god will subsequently change reality based on your requests. Believers rise up, like you, and claim that "having faith" is some ethereal achievement, you are "thrilled" that he's "found Christ" as if it's truly an accomplishment. Deciding you're being watched over by an imaginary being is dysfunctional, I'm sorry, it just is. Tell me how it's different than deciding the Loch Ness Monster exists, or Big Foot, but now add in that those beings are actually personally interested in your life and well-being? Gah, I can't even continue, I can only imagine the half-****ed justifications you'll start ringing off...*

You are being very disrespectful of religious people in this post. Why do you get to decide what is functional and what isn't? I would never be disrespectful towards you because you are an atheist. I would never say you belong in an insane asylum (and frankly that is kind of disrespectful towards the mentally ill as well). I would never derogate the fact that you don't believe in God and I would not go out of my way to compare your belief system to something ridiculous like the Loch Ness Monster. And I know, you don't think you have a belief system. But you can't really prove that God does not exist and I don't have to prove to you that God does exist. We can respect that we have different ways of seeing the world.


----------



## ConanHub

It's ok Pooh. If anyone is being propelled by some "strange" voice or force, it is him.

He has expertly declared the vast, overwhelming majority of the earth insane. He doesn't seem too happy or balanced, at least not in his posts.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pooh Bear

ConanHub said:


> It's ok Pooh. If anyone is being propelled by some "strange" voice or force, it is him.
> 
> He has expertly declared the vast, overwhelming majority of the earth insane. He doesn't seem too happy or balanced, at least not in his posts.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's not true, Conan. It's just some atheists get as extremist as some religious people are. Then they complain about the religious extremists. :scratchhead:


----------



## ConanHub

What's not true? He really doesn't seem very happy. &#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

intheory said:


> I might have you mixed up with someone else; but aren't you a person who watches a fair amount of pornography (per your contributions to other threads). Not a Christian pastime, right?


Try again. I've had lots of debates about pornagraphy, including why it's normal, appealing, and difficult for people to resist. I don't believe in villainizing people for their sexual desires, regardless of how "right" or "wrong" they are. I actually do not watch a "fair amount of pornagraphy", even though I've watched more in the past, and once in a blue moon will still indulge. I've however never been a major porn watcher in my life. 

No it's not a Christian pastime, but I'm not about to pretend that all my behavior lines up with "Christian pastimes". I've never been that type.




intheory said:


> But if it _is_ you; isn't that an example of how religion doesn't really have power to transform us into biblical, Godly people?
> 
> So, although changedbeliefs is coming on strong. He does have a lot of points about religion being kind of pointless and all in the "mind of the beholder", if you will.


"Religion" doesn't change anything. I never said it did. I believe a relationship with God does, as I've seen in my own life, and the lives of countless others. However never once did I suggest people were perfect because of "religion", or that a relationship with God magically just made one's life perfect. One's behavior and one's spiritual state aren't the same thing.

If you'd like to know what I believe, and have a discussion about that, ask. Don't assume. Honestly, based off all our exchanges, I expected so much more of you than this kind of low balling.

As far as you, him, or anyone believing a relationship with a higher power is "pointless"? That matters not to me. That's your choice. But I don't argue about my relationship with Christ anymore than I'd argue with somebody telling me my relationship with my wife, parents, family or friends was "pointless". Why would I debate the existence of someone important to me simply because they aren't important, or even exist, to you?


----------



## changedbeliefs

ConanHub said:


> He is not representing my God.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Read the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.



Thundarr said:


> Some posters are projecting and thinking in extremes. New flash; good people will get along with good people no matter their religious beliefs. Extremist will only get along with those who think exactly like they do.


Even the most basic Christian believes that I am going to hell, that I will, and deserve to, suffer in eternal torture and hellfire because I don't believe in their god. That is, in fact, a very basic barrier to our getting along.



Pooh Bear said:


> But you can't really prove that God does not exist and I don't have to prove to you that God does exist. We can respect that we have different ways of seeing the world.


Understand, that the person who believes in the imaginary thing needs to prove it exists. You cannot 'dream up' something and then shift the burden on those who don't believe to prove you wrong, a common logical fallacy employed by believers. Prove to me unicorns don't exist. Look up Russell's Teapot. Yes, we CAN respect different worldviews, but I am under no obligation to actually do so. Realize, that is distinct from respecting A PERSON. I respect PEOPLE, their right to life and happiness. I don't, and don't have to, respect the notion of shutting down critical thinking and believing an imaginary being is puppet-stringing the world. You can feel disrespected all you want, and even take offense, but so what. I'm offended when people tell me I'm going to hell, you think that changes their mind?



ConanHub said:


> It's ok Pooh. If anyone is being propelled by some "strange" voice or force, it is him.
> 
> He has expertly declared the vast, overwhelming majority of the earth insane. He doesn't seem too happy or balanced, at least not in his posts.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't know why you keep heading down this path, convincing yourself I'm not happy, or "balanced"? Talk about judgmental. I have never opined on someone's personal mental stability. My "asylum" analogy was just that, an analogy. Maybe you should try to understand it. Maybe watch the videos I posted. I AM propelled by a strange voice? What voice is that, exactly? My own reasoning and thought, instead of agreeing with some mass mentality or a book that's supposedly written by illiterate authors? Atheists are the fastest growing "religous" group (that is, people are abandoning religion more than embracing any type). The fact that most of the world believes in a god lends NO proof to it being true. At one point, the majority of the world thought the earth was flat. You're all proving my point: I do not buy into an imaginary being, and you're directly calling into question my own happiness and mental state. I am restricting myself to provable reality, and I'm the "sad whacko," or something?

This woman's marriage is doomed, and this is why.


----------



## frootloop

Pooh Bear said:


> But people have changed too. I mean in the Hebrew Bible people were fighting over territory and there was a my God is better than your God sort of stuff was going on. But everybody believed in a God or Goddess.


And now, all three major religions agree on the name of that god, and they are simply warring over who was the true prophet.

We've progressed so far.


----------



## Thundarr

changedbeliefs said:


> Even the most basic Christian believes that I am going to hell, that I will, and deserve to, suffer in eternal torture and hellfire because I don't believe in their god. That is, in fact, a very basic barrier to our getting along.


That's something you choose to make a barrier but some of us don't judge a person's value solely on their religion or lack of. If someone is pleasant and respectful to me then I'll get along with them just fine. My interpretation of the bible is very symbolic which a lot of Christians would find appauling but a conversation can always end with we can agree to disagree and not become a postured us versus them issue.


----------



## changedbeliefs

Thundarr said:


> That's something you choose to make a barrier but some of us don't judge a person's value solely on their religion or lack of. If someone is pleasant and respectful to me then I'll get along with them just fine. My interpretation of the bible is very symbolic which a lot of Christians would find appauling but a conversation can always end with we can agree to disagree and not become a postured us versus them issue.


Would you consider it reasonable, or unreasonable, for me to see someone's perspective on me of "you're going to hell, non-believer" as a barrier to having any sort of mutual-respect-based relationship? Let's go back to the OP's topic at hand. Could they have any sort of viable marriage if her husband views her as doomed for hell for not agreeing with his beliefs? Realize, that is an absolutely realistic, if not mandated to be realistic based on his beliefs, situation. A religious person who does not believe that is, in essence, abandoning a portion of the doctrine. His religion dictates that he believe that all non-believers are going to hell, that they deserve it.


----------



## Tasorundo

Changed, believers have tons of relationships with family and friends that they believe will have a different fate. It happens in almost every family I have ever known.

I would like to clarify something for you:

"His religion dictates that he believe that all non-believers are going to hell, that they deserve it."

That should say "His religion dictates that he believe that everyone is going to hell, that they deserve it." For the believer is not superior to the non-believer according to doctrine, the only difference is the acceptance of the reality that everyone is in need of a savior.


----------



## changedbeliefs

Tasorundo said:


> Changed, believers have tons of relationships with family and friends that they believe will have a different fate. It happens in almost every family I have ever known.
> 
> I would like to clarify something for you:
> 
> "His religion dictates that he believe that all non-believers are going to hell, that they deserve it."
> 
> That should say "His religion dictates that he believe that everyone is going to hell, that they deserve it." For the believer is not superior to the non-believer according to doctrine, the only difference is the acceptance of the reality that everyone is in need of a savior.


His religion does not say EVERYONE will go to hell. Maybe by default, original sin and all that, but the whole point is that believing is the "out." Religion kinda starts out as, everyone is on the "outside." You can see it as, it assumes everyone is reading its book in order to decide if they should believe. So, its first perspective is, "you're going to hell," but then it adds, "if you don't believe." So, you can believe, save yourself, and now you're in. So, once you believe you've been "saved," no, you're not going to hell. Only those who maintain their lack of belief are.

I URGE anyone to watch this video, this caller jumps in right from the beginning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TedHVzZdkSw


----------



## Thundarr

changedbeliefs said:


> Would you consider it reasonable, or unreasonable, for me to see someone's perspective on me of "you're going to hell, non-believer" as a barrier to having any sort of mutual-respect-based relationship? Let's go back to the OP's topic at hand. Could they have any sort of viable marriage if her husband views her as doomed for hell for not agreeing with his beliefs? Realize, that is an absolutely realistic, if not mandated to be realistic based on his beliefs, situation. A religious person who does not believe that is, in essence, abandoning a portion of the doctrine. His religion dictates that he believe that all non-believers are going to hell, that they deserve it.


It sounds reasonable to me. It's just not a wall I choose to put up. I've got too many family members and friends with varying religious beliefs. So given the topic, I think it's safe to say that for you this scenario would be a showstopper. For me it would not be a showstopper unless it lead to me being treated poorly. My thoughts are that we have the ability to think, read, comprehend, and problem solve so it's our jobs as individuals to figure out what we think and to let others do the same unless they ask for opinions.


----------



## jaquen

intheory said:


> If you're a Christian - you can't participate in pornography in anyway. *That's based on the scriptures in the Bible. *What you, I or anyone else think is fine. But our own personal beliefs and feelings are actually irrelevant. The final authority must be the Bible.
> 
> Desires are one thing. Actions are another. There is nothing forcing anyone to watch porn. It's a choice and you must make an effort to follow through on that choice.
> 
> You say you know it's not Christian; then you say your behavior
> doesn't line up with what's Christian. You're not "that type". That sounds condescending. What is "that type"? Devout Christians who try to obey what their instruction manual tells them to do?
> 
> "Behavior and one's spiritual state are not the same thing"
> Okay, according to you. The quotes I referenced below from James 2 and Matthew 7 seem to disagree with you.
> 
> And as far as the "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" approach? I used to find that kind of beautiful and transcendent. But then I began to see it as an excuse. So, it's meaningless to me when I hear people use it to explain why they believe in God, but don't think they have to obey the rules (Bible).
> 
> I believe my comment did ask you what you believe; germane to the thread topic. And I apologized in advance if I had you confused with anyone else.
> 
> Why would you debate your relationship to Christ, or his existence?
> 1 Peter 3:15 ". . . But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. *Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have*. But do this with gentleness and respect."
> 
> By your posts on this forum, I do have respect and regard for your intelligence, jacquen. And obviously, I utterly disagree with you on this issue.
> 
> OP, I apologize if I have threadjacked. But perhaps you can glean something from it. Certainly, how divisive religion can be.
> 
> And for perspective; I am someone who would still identify as Christian. But probably hanging on to my faith by a string.
> 
> Good Luck to you and your husband.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Job 31:1 I made a covenant with my eyes
> not to look lustfully at a young woman.
> 
> Exodus 20:14, 17
> 
> 14 You shall not commit adultery***.
> 
> 17 . . . . . You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife . . . .
> 
> Matthew 5:27-29
> 
> 27 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’*** 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your *right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.* It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
> 
> Matthew 7:16, 17
> 
> By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
> 
> 
> 1 Cor. 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither* fornicators*, nor idolaters, nor *adulterers*, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
> 
> James 2: 24
> 
> 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.


The type to lie and pretend. 

I could regale you with stories all day long about the goodness of the living God. About what he's done for me. About how incredible our relationship is, how loving, faithful, and beautiful he is, how even in chastisement, he, like a good Father, loves, guides and forgives. I could even give you scripture to counter your mistaken belief that even believers are expected endless perfection in behavior, for the word says that a righteous man isn't the one who does not fall, but the one who gets back up after a fall , time and again (see David, a "man after God's own heart", who certainly had proclivities a lot more involving than mere pornagraphy). It also says that WHEN a man sins, not if, he has an advocate before the Father in the presence of the Son. I could go on and on. Your attempts to corner me with cherry picked. contexteless scriptures, that I know very well, will not work. 

I have no trouble sharing my faith. What I will not, do not do, is argue the existence of God or debate my faith. Sharing and debating aren't the same thing. As scripture states, if they're not interested in hearing, shake the dust off your feet and move on. I'm a lover of the free will of us all. It's not my burden, nor my nature, to sit around trying to convince anybody about the existence of God beyond sharing or discussing my faith. 

This thread topic is about mixed faith/non-faith marriages. I have stuck to it's topic. Even in the face of Changing Beliefs burning desire to derail the conversation into yet another endless rabble about atheist vs theist, I have not entered into any kind of debate about the existence of God. Because, actually, one can't debate God. You either experience, or you do not. It would be a fruitless endeavour. And ultimately it's neither my desire nor the topic of this thread.

This is why I rarely come into this section. Seems every topic, regardless of how it starts, devolves into this nonsense. Belief vs Unbelief. I have no interest in it.

Again, if for whatever reason you're interested in discussing my faith, PM me. Up to this point you never have. Now here you are, for only reasons God knows, taking small sections of posts from TAM and attempting to judge my entire walk with the living God. You actually know almost nothing about my life, though oddly enough you're making incredible assumptions, all without once bothering to engage in a conversation. Perhaps I am wrong, but you seem to be here to battle, not actually engage, and perhaps someone else will oblige you.

It won't be me.


----------



## changedbeliefs

jaquen said:


> I have no trouble sharing my faith. What I will not, do not do, is argue the existence of God or debate my faith.


Right, you're fine if people want to hear it and rah-rah with you, you just don't want to tolerate anyone telling you that you're wrong, or it's baseless, or that it's very often used for harm, etc... And what luck, the Bible just happens to validate it by saying, essentially, "if people criticize it, walk away and don't listen."

Religion is the perfect scam.



> We're told that God is loving and kind and just and intrinsically good, but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust because he visits suffering on innocent people of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath...we're told that God is mysterious, who can understand God's will. Yet this merely human understanding of God's will is precisely what believers use to establish his goodness in the first place. Something good happens to a Christian...and we're told God is good. But when children by the tens of thousands are torn from their parents arms and drowned, we're told that God is mysterious. This is how you play tennis without the net....it is not only tiresome when otherwise intelligent people speak this way, it is morally reprehensible. This kind of faith is...the perfection of narcissism...Given all this god of yours does not accomplish in the lives of others, given the misery that's being imposed on some helpless child at this instant, this kind of faith is obscene. To think in this way is to fail to reason honestly, or to care sufficiently, about the suffering of other human beings. - Sam Harris


This thread is precisely about how or why believers can potentally, and likely, IMHO, not get along. I have a very hard time having a meaningful relationship with people who do not think critically - which is what you HAVE to do to accept some of this stuff - about something that supposedly drives their entire worldview, their behavior.


----------



## ConanHub

I take it all back changed....you seem to be the happiest most balanced personality on TAM and you play so well with others! &#55357;&#56833;&#55357;&#56833;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tacoma

intheory said:


> If you're a Christian - you can't participate in pornography in anyway.


The porn business would be dead if that were true.


----------



## ConanHub

tacoma said:


> The porn business would be dead if that were true.


Surprise! A lot of people claiming Christianity aren't practicing Christians.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## changedbeliefs

ConanHub said:


> I take it all back changed....you seem to be the happiest most balanced personality on TAM and you play so well with others! &#55357;&#56833;&#55357;&#56833;
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't give a rat's ass whether you think I'm happy or balanced; the point is, why don't you actually articulate what exactly is making you draw these conclusions? Right now, all it's coming off as is, "this guy's making some argument against religion, why doesn't he just believe we're all destined for mansions in the sky like everyone else does? He must just be sooo sad and crazy!"


----------



## changedbeliefs

ConanHub said:


> Surprise! A lot of people claiming Christianity aren't practicing Christians.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Did you bother looking up "No True Scotsman," or are you just going to keep claiming that every person who invokes a negative aspect of religion "isn't really religious"?


----------



## jaquen

changedbeliefs said:


> Right, you're fine if people want to hear it and rah-rah with you, you just don't want to tolerate anyone telling you that you're wrong, or it's baseless, or that it's very often used for harm, etc... And what luck, the Bible just happens to validate it by saying, essentially, "if people criticize it, walk away and don't listen."
> 
> Religion is the perfect scam.


How would you know what I tolerate? That's right, you don't. Just assumptions all day and night. 

I find it interesting that you're ranting and raving about how eiiiivil Christians are, yet here you are in this thread, treating people like absolute dirt. God doesn't need my defense, and you can attack religion all day and night. Your ugliness toward the people who do believe is another matter entirely. There are perfectly loving, kind atheists; I know some. You, however, don't appear to be one of them. You have a lot in common with the very type of theists you seem to abhor so. Two sides of the same coin.


----------



## ConanHub

changedbeliefs said:


> Did you bother looking up "No True Scotsman," or are you just going to keep claiming that every person who invokes a negative aspect of religion "isn't really religious"?


Ok pal. Are you intimately familiar with me or my God that I worship? I haven't met you and don't claim to know you intimately or your belief system. When I say someone isn't representing my God, I am pretty damn sure I know what I am talking about better than you.

Want me to start pointing you towards reference materials when you don't identify with someone claiming to be associated with you?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

changedbeliefs said:


> I don't give a rat's ass whether you think I'm happy or balanced; the point is, why don't you actually articulate what exactly is making you draw these conclusions? Right now, all it's coming off as is, "this guy's making some argument against religion, why doesn't he just believe we're all destined for mansions in the sky like everyone else does? He must just be sooo sad and crazy!"


I don't have all day to quote your nearly hysterical posts. You come across as unhinged. There are many on this sight that hold opposite beliefs to each other and still respect and appreciate each other.

One of my favorite posters is Married But Happy. We are about as opposite as people can get and like each other anyway.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## changedbeliefs

jaquen said:


> How would you know what I tolerate? That's right, you don't. Just assumptions all day and night.
> 
> I find it interesting that you're ranting and raving about how eiiiivil Christians are, yet here you are in this thread, treating people like absolute dirt. God doesn't need my defense, and you can attack religion all day and night. Your ugliness toward the people who do believe is another matter entirely. There are perfectly loving, kind atheists; I know some. You, however, don't appear to be one of them. You have a lot in common with the very type of theists you seem to abhor so. Two sides of the same coin.


I quoted you, for crying out loud. You flat said you will not debate the existence of god or your faith. Who exactly, and how exactly, am I treating "like dirt"? Where did I say Christians are evil? Quote me, and explain exactly how. I am debating the institution of religion, and the ability for people who do NOT buy it to coexist, or not, and why, with those who do. Telling someone that I see no reason to believe what they do, and that I think their beliefs are not the result of critical thinking, that they hold the potential to cause harm, isn't "disrespecting" those people or treating them like dirt. I mean, you don't believe in thousands of other religions! Are you disrespecting all of them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE


----------



## changedbeliefs

ConanHub said:


> Ok pal. Are you intimately familiar with me or my God that I worship? I haven't met you and don't claim to know you intimately or your belief system. When I say someone isn't representing my God, I am pretty damn sure I know what I am talking about better than you.
> 
> Want me to start pointing you towards reference materials when you don't identify with someone claiming to be associated with you?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I didn't realize you had your very own god. If "unhinged" is demanding evidence for the things that people claim, believing in only things that are true, real, tangible, knowable...yep, I guess that's me.


----------



## changedbeliefs

Just a short video, watch this and try to understand what it's like for a non-believer to get into a discussion about faith and religion. Listen how quickly this caller goes, "why are you so offended?!" and the hosts respond, "um, we're not offended." That's how easily I've heard many believers jump to "oh, your firm opinion opposite mine must mean you're offended!" And when they ask him simple questions about why he believes, how does he know, he just keeps skirting and saying more unprovable statements. That's what this thread has been like for me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruchQt3SpXM


----------



## Tasorundo

Changed, you should research the no true Scotsman fallacy, as it does not apply to this.

When the subsets are intersecting, there is no fallacy.

When you define a group of people as having a set of beliefs, it is perfectly logical to exclude people who do not ascribe to those beliefs from that group. The Scotsman fallacy deals with non-related qualities, such as drinking tea and being a Scotsman.


----------



## changedbeliefs

Tasorundo said:


> Changed, you should research the no true Scotsman fallacy, as it does not apply to this.
> 
> When the subsets are intersecting, there is no fallacy.
> 
> When you define a group of people as having a set of beliefs, it is perfectly logical to exclude people who do not ascribe to those beliefs from that group. The Scotsman fallacy deals with non-related qualities, such as drinking tea and being a Scotsman.


No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Examples:

A simple rendition of the fallacy:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

How is that different from: "No Christian [example behavior]." "But, I know this Christian who does that [and, btw, uses Christianity to justify it]." "Well, no true Christian would do that." ??

Real world example: Bible-thumpers who vehemently protest gay marriage, based distinctly on Bible verses regarding it as "abomination." Go, tell me whether that's "true" Christianity, or something else?


----------



## jaquen

I give up.

Take care guys and gals. Play nice. I'll see you in other parts of TAM.


----------



## Thundarr

changedbeliefs said:


> Right, you're fine if people want to hear it and rah-rah with you, you just don't want to tolerate anyone telling you that you're wrong, or it's baseless, or that it's very often used for harm, etc... And what luck, the Bible just happens to validate it by saying, essentially, "if people criticize it, walk away and don't listen."


My guess is he's just saying that it's a pointless debate with the same exact arguments slung in both directions and nothing will have changed afterwards. No epiphanies or profound new outlook ever comes from believer / non-believer back and forth.


----------



## changedbeliefs

See from 0:45 on, as regards to "attacking" a person vs. beliefs. Matt articulates it well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQWz8EcXSVo


----------



## changedbeliefs

Thundarr said:


> My guess is he's just saying that it's a pointless debate with the same exact arguments slung in both directions and nothing will have changed afterwards. No epiphanies or profound new outlook ever comes from believer / non-believer back and forth.


Well, I would have to disagree, because I had quite an epiphany once I started listening to people who treat their beliefs and their thinking critically, consistently. I would agree it is pointless if someone takes the stance of, to sum up very concisely, that they don't care if their beliefs are true. It's an eloquently succinct question that still amazes me as to its efficiency: do you care if what you believe is true? People who say no to that, then I agree, no progress will ever be made. What I find somewhat confusing still, is that I feel like people have a different answer to that, depending on the topic. Do you care if your beliefs are true about which medical procedure is best to choose for your cancer? Do you care if your beliefs are true about where you should invest your money? Do you care if your beliefs are true about whether or not there is a supernatural being overseeing every atom of life in this universe? Shouldn't the answer be the same?


----------



## ConanHub

What is that.....? Do you hear.......? Is that a deceased equine undergoing tenderization.....?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

jaquen said:


> How would you know what I tolerate? That's right, you don't. Just assumptions all day and night.
> 
> I find it interesting that you're ranting and raving about how eiiiivil Christians are, yet here you are in this thread, treating people like absolute dirt. God doesn't need my defense, and you can attack religion all day and night. Your ugliness toward the people who do believe is another matter entirely. There are perfectly loving, kind atheists; I know some. You, however, don't appear to be one of them. *You have a lot in common with the very type of theists you seem to abhor so. Two sides of the same coin.*


This last part hits the nail on the head changedbeliefs. Your condescending attack of people who believe in religion sounds very similar to the tact of those you're talking about. It's two sides of the "you must think as I do" coin.


----------



## changedbeliefs

Thundarr said:


> This last part hits the nail on the head changedbeliefs. Your condescending attack of people who believe in religion sounds very similar to the tact of those you're talking about. It's two sides of the "you must think as I do" coin.


Please, which things are actually condascending? I'm serious. Disagreeing, asking for evidence, not believing the same things, is not condascending. I am not pushing a belief, I am fending off the notion that I should accept a belief that someone else has. There is a big difference.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ConanHub said:


> What's not true? He really doesn't seem very happy. ��
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


He's just passionate about what he believes. I think that's fine. I just don't think it is ok for you to dump on somone else who believes differently than you do.


----------



## Pooh Bear

changedbeliefs said:


> Would you consider it reasonable, or unreasonable, for me to see someone's perspective on me of "you're going to hell, non-believer" as a barrier to having any sort of mutual-respect-based relationship? Let's go back to the OP's topic at hand. Could they have any sort of viable marriage if her husband views her as doomed for hell for not agreeing with his beliefs? Realize, that is an absolutely realistic, if not mandated to be realistic based on his beliefs, situation. A religious person who does not believe that is, in essence, abandoning a portion of the doctrine. His religion dictates that he believe that all non-believers are going to hell, that they deserve it.


So, the only people you can hang out with are people who think like you? That is pretty limiting. If you have a friend who is constantly telling you you're going to hell, that is not really appropriate and I wouldn't want to hang out with them. But why does everybody have to be exactly like you for them to be worthy enough to be part of your social circle?


----------



## Pooh Bear

*Understand, that the person who believes in the imaginary thing needs to prove it exists. You cannot 'dream up' something and then shift the burden on those who don't believe to prove you wrong, a common logical fallacy employed by believers. Prove to me unicorns don't exist. Look up Russell's Teapot. *

I know. I’ve heard this all before. That’s ok. We can disagree on that. 

*Yes, we CAN respect different worldviews, but I am under no obligation to actually do so. Realize, that is distinct from respecting A PERSON. I respect PEOPLE, their right to life and happiness. I don't, and don't have to, respect the notion of shutting down critical thinking and believing an imaginary being is puppet-stringing the world. You can feel disrespected all you want, and even take offense, but so what. I'm offended when people tell me I'm going to hell, you think that changes their mind?*

Well, then I probably wouldn’t spend a lot of time with you. Because my religious beliefs are a major part of who I am as a person. And if you are going to be derogatory about my beliefs, I will avoid people like that. But I don’t suppose you would care. There are plenty of people who see the world differently who do not go out of their way to degrade another person’s way of being in the world. Why do you feel entitled to do that?


----------



## Pooh Bear

frootloop said:


> And now, all three major religions agree on the name of that god, and they are simply warring over who was the true prophet.
> 
> We've progressed so far.


Yup. People aren't perfect. But I stand by the fact that if we had no religion people would still find ways to justify their bad behavior. We love to find ways to justify bad behavior. And again, people do the most amazing, compassionate things in the name of religion also. It is a mix.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*This thread is precisely about how or why believers can potentally, and likely, IMHO, not get along. I have a very hard time having a meaningful relationship with people who do not think critically - which is what you HAVE to do to accept some of this stuff - about something that supposedly drives their entire worldview, their behavior.*

I’m not sure why you can’t see that that is just as condescending as any fundamentalist Christian who is looking down on you for your way of seeing the world. Or does it not matter to you? I had a serious relationship for three and half years with an atheist and we both understood that we saw things differently and it was fine. We were just really respectful of each other and when I went to church he didn’t make mean comments about how I am not thinking critically enough or not being rational enough. And we could talk sometimes about our differences and learn about each other that way. I know not everyone could have a relationship with someone who had such different worldviews but could you have a friendship with someone? I don’t think you could changedbeliefs. Because in your assessment everyone who doesn’t think your way is an idiot.


----------



## Pooh Bear

changedbeliefs said:


> No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Examples:
> 
> A simple rendition of the fallacy:
> Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
> 
> How is that different from: "No Christian [example behavior]." "But, I know this Christian who does that [and, btw, uses Christianity to justify it]." "Well, no true Christian would do that." ??
> 
> Real world example: Bible-thumpers who vehemently protest gay marriage, based distinctly on Bible verses regarding it as "abomination." Go, tell me whether that's "true" Christianity, or something else?


Because Chrisitanity is a set of beliefs, changed. A Scotsman is a part of a particular group of people. So if I say no woman does this but Sue does that. Well no real woman does that. Of course, Sue is a woman. But if you are talking about a religious tradition and someone is not following the edicts of that religious faith, are they truly living that religion? The problem is, of course, that you can be in a particular tradition that says this is not how Christians behave so therefore that group is not Christian. But that group says they are Christian and maybe thinks the other group isn't Christian. So people wrangle over that.


----------



## MarriedManInHis40s

Thundarr said:


> That's something you choose to make a barrier but some of us don't judge a person's value solely on their religion or lack of. If someone is pleasant and respectful to me then I'll get along with them just fine. My interpretation of the bible is very symbolic which a lot of Christians would find appauling but a conversation can always end with we can agree to disagree and not become a postured us versus them issue.


You are making it sound as though atheists who would not enter a serious relationship with religious people are fanatical extremists, inflexible, unreasonable, dogmatic, etc. *I beg to differ.* Everyone has standards in a relationship. Most people wouldn't date someone they weren't attracted to. A lot of people wouldn't date or marry someone with serious money problems, or who wasn't educated, or who wasn't employed. If you have conditions like that, are you dogmatic, inflexible, extremist? Or are you merely a self-respecting person who has preferences and standards for what they need in a life partner? Well, so am I!

I know plenty of religious people who are perfectly pleasant, and I feel no urge to argue with them about religion unless they start it (the pointless argument raging here demonstrates why). But while I'm not at all saying that religious people are "stupid", as far as I'm concerned being religious speaks to a certain intellectual timidity and laziness and lack of courage to think for yourself, and I'm sorry, *I find that to be an unattractive trait in a person*, just as someone might find unemployment, ugliness, stupidity, bad manners, prudishness in bed, etc, etc unattractive. That doesn't make me a unreasoning fanatic, the flip side of the coin from a dogmatic religious fanatic, it makes me a person with standards and preferences like anyone else.


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedManInHis40s said:


> You are making it sound as though atheists who would not enter a serious relationship with religious people are fanatical extremists, inflexible, unreasonable, dogmatic, etc. *I beg to differ.* Everyone has standards in a relationship. Most people wouldn't date someone they weren't attracted to. A lot of people wouldn't date or marry someone with serious money problems, or who wasn't educated, or who wasn't employed. If you have conditions like that, are you dogmatic, inflexible, extremist? Or are you merely a self-respecting person who has preferences and standards for what they need in a life partner? Well, so am I!
> 
> I know plenty of religious people who are perfectly pleasant, and I feel no urge to argue with them about religion (the pointless argument raging here demonstrates why). But while I'm not at all saying that religious people are "stupid", as far as I'm concerned being religious speaks to a certain intellectual timidity and lack of courage to think for yourself, and I'm sorry, *I find that to be an unattractive trait in a person*, just as someone might find unemployment, ugliness, stupidity, bad manners, prudishness in bed, etc, etc unattractive. That doesn't make me a unreasoning fanatic, the flip side of the coin from a dogmatic religious fanatic, it makes me a person with standards and preferences like anyone else.


No MarriedMan, I think it got of the topic of whether someone should be in a relationship with another person who has a different set of beliefs. Now we are just talking about what is respectful when it comes to people in your life who don't believe the same way.


----------



## Thundarr

MarriedManInHis40s said:


> You are making it sound as though atheists who would not enter a serious relationship with religious people are fanatical extremists, inflexible, unreasonable, dogmatic, etc. *I beg to differ.* Everyone has standards in a relationship. Most people wouldn't date someone they weren't attracted to. A lot of people wouldn't date or marry someone with serious money problems, or who wasn't educated, or who wasn't employed. If you have conditions like that, are you dogmatic, inflexible, extremist? Or are you merely a self-respecting person who has preferences and standards for what they need in a life partner? Well, so am I!


It's not how I meant it to sound. I was only saying it's not a showstopper for everyone. Especially when we consider a couple who's happily married and one or the other gains or loses religion. Your right that we all have standards when starting a relationship and we all have dealbreakers once we're in one so who am I to say what your standards and deal breakers should be.


----------



## Thundarr

changedbeliefs said:


> Please, which things are actually condascending? I'm serious. Disagreeing, asking for evidence, not believing the same things, is not condascending. I am not pushing a belief, I am fending off the notion that I should accept a belief that someone else has. There is a big difference.


I think the quotes below are good examples. The message I read from these quotes is that anyone who believes in a religion is a desparate moron who should be committed. That's not something people respond well to.




> My reaction to this, and my attitude toward any such story from a religious person, is that this isn't critical thinking, this isn't intelligent perspective. Quite the opposite, I don't know, call it "wishful" thinking, "woo-woo," or I could probably use more pejorative terms. It's a desperation, it's something people do when they either don't want to take control/accountability, or can't.





> What no believer here is going to understand, is that to critical thinkers, to non-believers, "people of faith" are virtually indistinguishable from the people in the insane asylum. You hear voices, you claim to be getting signs from beyond, you believe you can close your eyes and think thoughts and that your god will subsequently change reality based on your requests. Believers rise up, like you, and claim that "having faith" is some ethereal achievement, you are "thrilled" that he's "found Christ" as if it's truly an accomplishment. Deciding you're being watched over by an imaginary being is dysfunctional, I'm sorry, it just is. Tell me how it's different than deciding the Loch Ness Monster exists, or Big Foot, but now add in that those beings are actually personally interested in your life and well-being? Gah, I can't even continue, I can only imagine the half-****ed justifications you'll start ringing off...





> Religion is the perfect scam.
> 
> This thread is precisely about how or why believers can potentally, and likely, IMHO, not get along. I have a very hard time having a meaningful relationship with people who do not think critically - which is what you HAVE to do to accept some of this stuff - about something that supposedly drives their entire worldview, their behavior.


----------



## Pooh Bear

changedbeliefs said:


> Please, which things are actually condascending? I'm serious. Disagreeing, asking for evidence, not believing the same things, is not condascending. I am not pushing a belief, I am fending off the notion that I should accept a belief that someone else has. There is a big difference.


Why do you have to fend anything off? If you are secure in what you think what difference does it matter what anyone else thinks?If someone were evangelizing in this space, I could see that. I don't think anyone is doing that here though. Do you?


----------



## ConanHub

Pooh Bear said:


> He's just passionate about what he believes. I think that's fine. I just don't think it is ok for you to dump on somone else who believes differently than you do.


Not dumping. Have not been condescending or insulted his intelligence once. He has, however, done just that in many colorful posts.

A response to hostility is not dumping.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pooh Bear

ConanHub said:


> Not dumping. Have not been condescending or insulted his intelligence once. He has, however, done just that in many colorful posts.
> 
> A response to hostility is not dumping.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sorry. That was the general you. Not you Conan. I was just talking about how people can be really passionate about something they think but it is not an excuse to dump on other people's interpretation of the world around them. Is that clearer?


----------



## changedbeliefs

After a night to decompress, I'm going to offer a mea culpa. Like Pooh Bear said, I am passionate. I reacted to the post earlier, not going to quote it, where the OP was accused of being deceitful and that she should just divorce her husband because SHE "hadn't seen the light," or whatever. I tried very carefully to speak in terms of the ideas, not personalities. That is, one can call a perspective "unintelligent" without deeming a person wholly unintelligent...at least I believe so. For things that came out as actual personal attacks, I sincerely apologize.

I still maintain that the OP is in a very difficult position, inherently. I understand there are instances where opposing beliefs may not be dealbreakers, I guess I just see cases like that as, instances where at least one of those people is holding a "soft" position. This story popped up on my FB this morning:

Christian Group In Texas Shows What Hatred Looks Like

There's a video in that link. To me, when religion can be used as a backdrop for actions like this, it calls into question the entire institution, and I admit, it makes me zero in when I hear anyone invoke it, even the "good parts." Maybe even especially when only the good parts are mentioned, as I tend to see it as people trying to shove the rest under the carpet, so to speak.

I maintain that ideas can be criticized, it's one of the ways that I think society maintains its sanity, its overall symbiosis, and is ultimately improved. Again, however, I apologize for anything I said that personally insulted anyone's own character.


----------



## Pooh Bear

changedbeliefs said:


> After a night to decompress, I'm going to offer a mea culpa. Like Pooh Bear said, I am passionate. I reacted to the post earlier, not going to quote it, where the OP was accused of being deceitful and that she should just divorce her husband because SHE "hadn't seen the light," or whatever. I tried very carefully to speak in terms of the ideas, not personalities. That is, one can call a perspective "unintelligent" without deeming a person wholly unintelligent...at least I believe so. For things that came out as actual personal attacks, I sincerely apologize.
> 
> I still maintain that the OP is in a very difficult position, inherently. I understand there are instances where opposing beliefs may not be dealbreakers, I guess I just see cases like that as, instances where at least one of those people is holding a "soft" position. This story popped up on my FB this morning:
> 
> Christian Group In Texas Shows What Hatred Looks Like
> 
> There's a video in that link. To me, when religion can be used as a backdrop for actions like this, it calls into question the entire institution, and I admit, it makes me zero in when I hear anyone invoke it, even the "good parts." Maybe even especially when only the good parts are mentioned, as I tend to see it as people trying to shove the rest under the carpet, so to speak.
> 
> I maintain that ideas can be criticized, it's one of the ways that I think society maintains its sanity, its overall symbiosis, and is ultimately improved. Again, however, I apologize for anything I said that personally insulted anyone's own character.


Thank you, changed.


----------



## ConanHub

Pooh Bear said:


> Sorry. That was the general you. Not you Conan. I was just talking about how people can be really passionate about something they think but it is not an excuse to dump on other people's interpretation of the world around them. Is that clearer?


Yes and thank you. &#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## I dunno

Oh dear, if he's gone from 0 to 100 overnight, then my deepest sympathies, I'm all for it but in moderation. When you see him walking up the driveway with any sort of musical instrument, rolled up jacket sleeves and the, ever so righteous smug look, it's time to call it a day. Happy clapping xxx


----------



## Basic"FairyDust"Love

I would never want to be with someone that is religious. That religious person, whether they outwardly expresses it or not, believes that only their religion is correct and that anyone that is not a part of it is not in their particular god's favor. They believe that such people are damned in this life and the next if they even believe that you have a chance at another life. How can you live with someone that feels that way about you?


----------



## I dunno

Nice one, providing it's not the hey, you're wrong, I'm right brigade. If you know the Our Father all well and good, but that in itself doesn't make you a righteous person. Actions sometimes speak louder then words and stop it with the tambourine, incessant. xxx


----------



## changedbeliefs

intheory: thank you.


----------



## RaiderGirl

changedbeliefs said:


> That's one definition, but one can be "spiritual" (which I take to simply mean the recognition of the "greater-ness" of what is around us: nature, the societal machine, the big picture, if you will) without having to believe in any creator, and certainly not a proper noun personal version. That's one of the statements that theists and religious don't understand is judgmental. They imply atheists are immoral, unspiritual automatons. Go look up the video of Oprah with Diana Nyad: when Nyad stated how she could look at nature and the universe in awe, Oprah said, "well, then I don't call you an atheist." It was offensive. To be very vulgar, it'd be like telling Oprah, "I saw you pee standing up once, so now I don't call you a woman." To insinuate that only theists/religous can know the difference between wrong and right, or be able to consider a sunset beautiful, is arrogant and pompous, and is but one more method by which you can insult an atheist and get this "why are you so angry?" type of attitude. It's because there are many, many ways in which we are insulted, directly and indirectly.


I never meant that phrase to define anything. I posted it because I thought the original poster may become aware that religion does control. If her husband follows the rules of his newfound faith, that act will surely effect her life. If he belongs to a church that sees dancing as sinful...she will never dance with him again.

As for the subject of atheist, I will try to express myself but will probably stumble a bit. Forgive me if I say something stupid.
Atheists are not broken, they don't need fixing. Atheist don't have the answers and neither do believers. Pompousness and self righteousness is an intolerant attitude on either side. Immortality is not reserved for any specific group. 

I am ok with all and any walk of life that allows the human race to "be" and to exist in peace without explaining oneself or defending oneself. I dislike very much when I see zealots efforts to convert everyone to their religious way. I wasn't too happy when a local atheist group tried to stop an Easter egg hunt because it was held in a public park. 

So as you can see I can't tolerate the intolerant. The original poster and her husband have to be very cautious because the of joining (or leaving) a church will change the dynamics in the household.


----------



## Pooh Bear

I think she's gone. I would be so curious to know what she decided. I think what if my husband came home with a newfound fundamentalist Christian take on the world? That would never happen, he is too much of a scientist. But I think it would be very hard. If he started talking about how he would now be the head of the household and I needed to submit, I would have a problem with that.


----------



## mupostori

" Immortality is not reserved for any specific group" . absolutely true I agree with this statement 100%

now by definition
immortality: The ability to live forever; eternal life
rephrasing 
"The ability to live forever is not reserved for any specific group"

now I have some questions
1 how does one get this ability to live forever ?
2 is there life beyond the grave ie one never dies ?
3 how do the dead come back to life ?
4 where is eternity lived in hell,heaven or earth ?

the answer to all these questions is Jesus Christ crucified ,a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to atheists


----------



## I dunno

Have a good old laugh about it, see it as another episode in life's complex web. Let's hope it all simmers down for everyone's sanity, either that or start playing a musical instrument, I'd go for something big, like a drum. Peace and Love xxx


----------



## Pooh Bear

Here's an interesting article about raising children without religion. What do you guys think?

How secular family values stack up - LA Times


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Pooh Bear said:


> Here's an interesting article about raising children without religion. What do you guys think?
> 
> How secular family values stack up - LA Times


I love that article


----------



## changedbeliefs

mupostori said:


> " Immortality is not reserved for any specific group" . absolutely true I agree with this statement 100%
> 
> now by definition
> immortality: The ability to live forever; eternal life
> rephrasing
> "The ability to live forever is not reserved for any specific group"
> 
> now I have some questions
> 1 how does one get this ability to live forever ?
> 2 is there life beyond the grave ie one never dies ?
> 3 how do the dead come back to life ?
> 4 where is eternity lived in hell,heaven or earth ?
> 
> the answer to all these questions is Jesus Christ crucified ,a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to atheists


I would have to rephrase your last sentence as:

_Christians think the answer to all these questions is Jesus Christ crucified, which is a stumbling block to Jews and is seen as foolishness to atheists._

Lastly, I'd like to add this description of immortality: _a concept that completely breaches scientific principles and has never been observed, documented or proven._

The disparity between how you and I would articulate essentially this same philosophical proposition is key to the original problem posed in this thread. It's the difference between a "free and critical thinker's view," and a "person of faith's" view. I don't see how a marriage could work between two people that have this difference. Too many issues rely on compatability and agreement within an LTR, a household, etc... I, too, am curious how it's going with the OP.


----------



## changedbeliefs

Pooh Bear said:


> Here's an interesting article about raising children without religion. What do you guys think?
> 
> How secular family values stack up - LA Times


I'm glad that secular society is becoming more noticed for what it is: a perfectly reasonably, moral and ethical way to live your life. However, the tone of the article does make me feel like there's a lot of perception to overcome.



> He was surprised by what he found: High levels of family solidarity and emotional closeness between parents and nonreligious youth, and strong ethical standards and moral values that had been clearly articulated as they were imparted to the next generation.
> 
> “Many nonreligious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious' parents in our study,” Bengston told me. “The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterized by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.”


I feel like that's saying, "oh my gosh...I...I can't believe it! These people are actual GOOD, and ethical! And...their family unit is actually sound!" But...I digress...I guess there's bound to be some culture shock as the overwhelmingly religious population finally figures out they don't have a monopoly on being good citizens.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*I feel like that's saying, "oh my gosh...I...I can't believe it! These people are actual GOOD, and ethical! And...their family unit is actually sound!"*


----------



## mupostori

changedbeliefs said:


> Lastly, I'd like to add this description of immortality: _a concept that completely breaches scientific principles and has never been observed, documented or proven._


what is your view on immortality. (possible,impossible ,don't know)


----------



## changedbeliefs

mupostori said:


> what is your view on immortality. (possible,impossible ,don't know)


Immortality is a fantastical idea that violates scientific facts and empirical evidence (i.e., we know that living things generally deteriorate and die, and we have never seen something live forever). Assuming we're talking abuot humans here, something on the order of only 100-110 years maybe is the max we've observed. We're then left with just the supernatural, which coincidentally, becomes "well... you can't see it....or feel it...we can't know it..." It becomes an argument of unfalsifiability:

Unfalsifiability



> Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons. Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.


This is where most of religion falls. If you ask me, is it possible, impossible, don't know, my best response is, "No, I don't think it's possible. We have most certainly never seen it. Do I know it's IMpossible? No, humility requires me to say, I can't know the entirety of what is possible or impossible. So, yeah, anything is possible, but I have no reason to believe it's true."

At which point, the (IMO) dishonest response can then be, "A-HA! You admit, anything is possible! You can't prove it's not true!" This is also a "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy. By this tactic, you leave open the possiblity to believe in ANY proposition, anything at all.

No, I don't believe any person can be immortal, which is closely tied to, no, I don't believe in resurrection, reincarnation, or any such concept.


----------



## mupostori

changedbeliefs said:


> "No, I don't think it's possible. We have most certainly never seen it. Do I know it's IMpossible? No, humility requires me to say, I can't know the entirety of what is possible or impossible. So, yeah, anything is possible, but I have no reason to believe it's true."


The conclusion is you don't know if it is possible or not possible but you think it is not possible. 

here comes the foolishness /power of God 

Now the difference between me and you is that I know and you don't know , I don't have to think about these matters.

I know that Jesus Christ is the truth and in him there is no lie , I don't think about this I know this.How do I know this , I know this from his word and the evidence that follows it . For example he promised the Holy Spirit to those who believe in him .If he had lied I would not have received this gift from God.This spirit also testifies of Jesus .Now I can't deny what I have received to appease anyone .

My point in all this is that if someone does not lie, if they tell you something then it is certain. Of-course it is up to you to believe but truth remains truth .


----------



## changedbeliefs

mupostori said:


> The conclusion is you don't know if it is possible or not possible but you think it is not possible.
> 
> here comes the foolishness /power of God
> 
> Now the difference between me and you *is that I know and you don't know* , I don't have to think about these matters.
> 
> I know that Jesus Christ is the truth and in him there is no lie , I don't think about this I know this.How do I know this , I know this from his word and the evidence that follows it . For example he promised the Holy Spirit to those who believe in him .If he had lied I would not have received this gift from God.This spirit also testifies of Jesus .Now I can't deny what I have received to appease anyone .
> 
> My point in all this is that if someone does not lie, if they tell you something then it is certain. Of-course it is up to you to believe but truth remains truth .


Ok, I'm sorry, but you went from what seemed like a honest attempt at understanding and discourse to dismissive arrogance. There is NO other realm of discussion where someone is allowed to say "I just know because I know." Trust me, I GET the desire to "know" the universe, our origins, our future, our "destiny," if you will. BUT WE DON'T. The vehemence of your desire to know does not give you license to declare THAT you know. The Bible is not your evidence, the Bible is THE CLAIM. A comic book isn't proof of Spiderman, either. That you have attributed things to god isn't proof either. I can say "I prayed for the rain to stop," and when it stops, say "see, it worked!" But, rain always stops at some point, all on its own. PROVE that something in your life could have ONLY occurred from god, YOUR god, not any of the various other gods you DON'T believe in.

I can be honest and say I don't know something. To purport to know something, that is constructed to be unknowable in the first place in order to AVOID being proven (or unproven) is somewhere between arrogant and insulting. Now you've highlighted what I really dislike about religion: it puts itself as more knowing, more "enlightened" than those who choose to be honest and acknowledge what we know and what we don't know. If this were ANY other topic, the simple question of "prove it" would go wholly and entirely unanswered and these supernatural claims wouldn't even be entertained any further.


----------



## mupostori

I have told you what I do know ,which is that Jesus the Christ is the truth and in him there is no lie.

Surely an eye witness account has to be taken as evidence and has to be examined. 

The Roman historian Tacitus writing between 115-117 A.D. had this to say about Christians “They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home.” From his Annals, xv. 44 - See more at: Historical Proof of the Bible | Jesus in history

History tells us that there was a man called Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The written eye witness account his life is the gospel of John .

Now one has to examine the gospel and judge for themselves if it is the truth or a lie .

I'm not talking religion here but Jesus Christ 
Now you've highlighted what I really dislike about Jesus Christ: he puts himself to be more knowing, more "enlightened" than those who choose to be honest and acknowledge what we know and what we don't know.

Again I will say this truth remains truth ,


----------



## Pooh Bear

mupostori said:


> I have told you what I do know ,which is that Jesus the Christ is the truth and in him there is no lie.
> 
> Surely an eye witness account has to be taken as evidence and has to be examined.
> 
> The Roman historian Tacitus writing between 115-117 A.D. had this to say about Christians “They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home.” From his Annals, xv. 44 - See more at: Historical Proof of the Bible | Jesus in history
> 
> History tells us that there was a man called Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The written eye witness account his life is the gospel of John .
> 
> Now one has to examine the gospel and judge for themselves if it is the truth or a lie .
> 
> I'm not talking religion here but Jesus Christ
> Now you've highlighted what I really dislike about Jesus Christ: he puts himself to be more knowing, more "enlightened" than those who choose to be honest and acknowledge what we know and what we don't know.
> 
> Again I will say this truth remains truth ,


None of that says that Jesus was God, mupostori. That's something you either believe or you don't. Jesus may have existed but that does not mean you believe that he was God. That's not really something that can be proven. They're two different things.


----------



## frootloop

mupostori said:


> I have told you what I do know ,which is that Jesus the Christ is the truth and in him there is no lie.
> 
> Surely an eye witness account has to be taken as evidence and has to be examined.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Again I will say this truth remains truth ,


Saying it, believing it, doesn't make it any more true for anyone but you. If you believe it, and its not true, are you lying when you say it? That's a philosophical question, but your certainty of something doesn't affect its truth.

Whether Christ every existed and was crucified is a much lower bar than say - believing he had magical powers and rose from the dead.

That said, it still is far from certain of this exceedingly low bar:
Did the historical Jesus exist? A growing number of scholars don’t think so


----------



## Pooh Bear

frootloop said:


> Saying it, believing it, doesn't make it any more true for anyone but you. If you believe it, and its not true, are you lying when you say it? That's a philosophical question, but your certainty of something doesn't affect its truth.
> 
> Whether Christ every existed and was crucified is a much lower bar than say - believing he had magical powers and rose from the dead.
> 
> That said, it still is far from certain of this exceedingly low bar:
> Did the historical Jesus exist? A growing number of scholars don’t think so


Nothing in that article proves anything frootloop. There would have been no reason that anyone would have notated anything about Jesus. To claim that they would have says that the Romans would have seen him as overly important. I doubt they did.

The gospels were not meant to be factual accounts of Jesus. They were meant to evangelize and to make theological points. In fact, in very early Christianity, the written word wasn't even trusted. Prophecy was more important. Reliance on the written word would come later. And the gospels were not first hand accounts. They were written from 70 to 110 CE. And no, Matthew and Luke did not "rework" Mark. They think there is a missing gospel that Matthew and Luke drew from. They call it the Q source. Mark was the first gospel. John was the last. John is very different from the others. There were actually many gospels in early Christianity. But they did not all make it into the Bible. Paul was not concerned with Jesus's life. He was concerned about making sense of Jesus and yes, there were conflicts between Paul and Peter and James. 

There are scholars trying to understand the historical Jesus. It's difficult. There is not a lot of evidence from that time period. I'm not sure why Crosson would say it is an academic embarrassement. Some history is like that. Do you have another source for Crosson's quote? History is written by "the winners." Plus history was so different back then. It wasn't necessarily all factual like it is today. I mean the fact that someone named a Gospel after a disciple did not mean that it was written by that disciple but that you honored that disciple. This article does not show a very good understanding of Christian history.


----------



## changedbeliefs

There is a lot of evidence coming out now questioning whether the man Jesus even existed, but there is certainly great doubt surrounding who wrote the Bible, when it was written, how much has been edited, redacted, omitted, etc... To fall back on the Bible as an unfallible, unquestionable "eyewitness" account of anything, is specious AT BEST, and at worst, a completely dishonest way to dodge the definition of proof, as I said, as we define it in any other topic.

And that's something that hit me. It's often said that we can't question or criticize people's "faith." But, if viewed from the perspective of, faith is when we insert knowledge without evidence, that can't be criticized?? It just blows me away: if this were physics class, or economics, or math, or engineering, no one would be allowed to "just say it's true." Can you imagine, a guy building a bridge says, "two beams will be plenty of support, trust me, I just know because I know it in my heart"?!?!

And I reiterate: if religion simply wanted to live and let live, I would likely have far less of an issue. I trust it's not really up for debate that this is far from the case. We have a presidential candidate alluding to his desire to implement "God's law" if he gets into office. How much more intrusive could it be?


----------



## frootloop

Pooh Bear said:


> Nothing in that article proves anything frootloop.
> 
> There are scholars trying to understand the historical Jesus. It's difficult. There is not a lot of evidence from that time period. I'm not sure why Crosson would say it is an academic embarrassement. Some history is like that. Do you have another source for Crosson's quote?


Thankfully, I don't need to prove anything. My point was, there are many who disagree that Jesus even existed in the form generally thought of.

A classier article, which I didn't wade thru entirely, (as the subject of history makes me sleepy):
Theories and Methodologies in the Study of the Historical Jesus and Christian Origins

Also has the quote from Crosson, and a bib of:
_Crossan, John Dominic The Historical Jesus New York, 1991_


----------



## changedbeliefs

I'll just throw this in here again for believers: do you care whether or not what you believe is true? And by true, I mean, true in the sense that we consider EVERY OTHER THING to be true.

I was watching Brain Games with my kids, and their episode was on how our brains are "wired," so they said, to believe paranormal things (a stretch, I think, but it was entertaining). They sat a group at a Ouija board, and of course, they ooh'd and aah'd at how the spirits answered their question, and each person swore they were not influencing the results. They commented after how now they "believed" and could "sense" the spirits, etc... Round 2, they blindfolded them all, and - surprise! - the pointer now went to blank spaces on the board, spelled jibberish if it actually hit a letter, etc... "Spooky" was debunked. HOWEVER, one participant said she still believed....I stopped the DVR.

I said to my daughter, "Ok, I have a quarter in my (closed) hand. Do you believe me? She shook her head. I said, "no, really, I do, I promise!" She still said no. I said, "but...if I do, you can have it!" Now the kids are smiling, maybe not getting my analogy entirely, but clearly seeing that I'm full of ****, lol. Last gasp, I said, "actually....it's a dollar! You can have a dollar!"

Finally, I opened my hand and said, "ok, obviously, I don't have anything," but then I continued and said, "that woman who said she still believed in spirits? That's like looking at my open, empty hand and saying, 'but I still believe there's a quarter there.'"


----------



## Pooh Bear

*I'll just throw this in here again for believers: do you care whether or not what you believe is true? And by true, I mean, true in the sense that we consider EVERY OTHER THING to be true.*

I’m a Christian. Do I think every single thing in the Bible has to be true? No. Because the Bible is people’s attempt to understand who God is and that does not mean they always got it right. I’m not a Bible literalist. For me, the Holy Spirit is still working through individuals. Religion is not science. I don’t feel like I need to prove that God exists. I can’t live without God and maybe that is weakness and maybe I am wrong. But I’m ok with that.
Yes, some people believe in ghosts.


----------



## Pooh Bear

frootloop said:


> Thankfully, I don't need to prove anything. My point was, there are many who disagree that Jesus even existed in the form generally thought of.
> 
> A classier article, which I didn't wade thru entirely, (as the subject of history makes me sleepy):
> Theories and Methodologies in the Study of the Historical Jesus and Christian Origins
> 
> Also has the quote from Crosson, and a bib of:
> _Crossan, John Dominic The Historical Jesus New York, 1991_


Yes. You do. If you're going to make historical claims, you do.


----------



## changedbeliefs

Pooh Bear said:


> I’m a Christian. Do I think every single thing in the Bible has to be true? No. Because the Bible is people’s attempt to understand who God is and that does not mean they always got it right. I’m not a Bible literalist. For me, the Holy Spirit is still working through individuals. Religion is not science. I don’t feel like I need to prove that God exists. I can’t live without God and maybe that is weakness and maybe I am wrong. But I’m ok with that.
> Yes, some people believe in ghosts.


I appreciate that level of candor. I absolutely respect your right to believe in god if it provides comfort, contentment or some other such sentiment. I certainly empathize with it: there are times where I wish I could truly believe I'll see my father again. I also agree that, to the extent your beliefs stay within yourself, you definitely do not have any obligation to anyone to "prove god exists." I wish I could say that I thought most religious people were like this, or that religion itself advocated this. My perspective is that religion, inherently, does not. These discussions often get hung up on the idea of personal attacks. I am not biased against religious people, I don't prejudge them. Being honest, my only supposition is that they are not true critical thinkers, but that's as far as I go in being judgmental. From there, it's about actions, character, and it's only when I feel that, to echo a prior sentiment, that people try to justify bad behavior as being good by deferring to their religious beliefs, that I get upset.

When it is implied in any way that I need to believe what you believe, that's when proof/justification IS needed, required, actually. Whether you're actually asking/demanding me to believe it, too, or just via condemnation or judgment for not believing it. I can walk through a town square with any variety of ethnicities, belief systems, anything, and smile and interact and enjoy the company of our diverse society. But if I have an "atheist" shirt on, and some Christian decides to yell, "you're going to hell, heathen," it's time to strap on your debating shoes. At that point, the "usual" rules of proof need to be adhered to; "because I know" won't cut it. Again, I have no issue if that's good enough for you, personally; I'm allowed to have my own standards, and those standards are simply the same ones that apply as if we were discussing anything else.



Pooh Bear said:


> Yes. You do. If you're going to make historical claims, you do.


Another good point. It's one thing to believe in things not proven and/or unprovable. I think it's definitely disingenuous, though, to present a faith-based answer to something that, in fact, has a science-based explanation. This is from Neil deGrasse Tyson:



> [if] I said to you, give me your description of the natural world based only on [the Bible], you would say the world was created in six days, and that stars are just little points of light much lesser than the sun. And that in fact, they can fall out of the sky, right, because that’s what happens during the Revelation. You know, one of the signs that the second coming, is that the stars will fall out of the sky and land on Earth. *To even write that means you don’t know what those things are.* You have no concept of what the actual universe is. So everybody who tried to make proclamations about the physical universe based on Bible passages got the wrong answer.


To stick to beliefs that have been proven wrong is, sorry to belabor the word, is another potential dishonest aspect of religion.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*When it is implied in any way that I need to believe what you believe, that's when proof/justification IS needed, required, actually. Whether you're actually asking/demanding me to believe it, too, or just via condemnation or judgment for not believing it. I can walk through a town square with any variety of ethnicities, belief systems, anything, and smile and interact and enjoy the company of our diverse society. But if I have an "atheist" shirt on, and some Christian decides to yell, "you're going to hell, heathen," it's time to strap on your debating shoes. At that point, the "usual" rules of proof need to be adhered to; "because I know" won't cut it. Again, I have no issue if that's good enough for you, personally; I'm allowed to have my own standards, and those standards are simply the same ones that apply as if we were discussing anything else.*

I agree.


----------



## frootloop

Pooh Bear said:


> Yes. You do. If you're going to make historical claims, you do.


My original point was not all scholars agree Jesus actually existed.
I presented a website listing several scholars who feel this way.

QED. Proven.

No one can prove he didn't exist, as proving a negative is not in general possible. I wasn't even suggesting he didn't, I personally suspect he did. My point was more about the goal post moving from "Jesus is Savior" to "Jesus existed" that I perceived.


----------



## Pooh Bear

frootloop said:


> My original point was not all scholars agree Jesus actually existed.
> I presented a website listing several scholars who feel this way.
> 
> QED. Proven.
> 
> No one can prove he didn't exist, as proving a negative is not in general possible. I wasn't even suggesting he didn't, I personally suspect he did. My point was more about the goal post moving from "Jesus is Savior" to "Jesus existed" that I perceived.


You have a problem with someone using historical data to prove religious belief in other words?


----------



## changedbeliefs

I think his issue is a common gap in religious "proofs" which is, in this example: even if a guy named Jesus existed, during the biblical time period walked the earth, spoke to people, issued the Golden Rule, was crucified....that could all be true, yet is absolutely zero proof that he was a god, son of a god, our "savior," any of that. He has an issue with straw men.


----------



## Pooh Bear

changedbeliefs said:


> I think his issue is a common gap in religious "proofs" which is, in this example: even if a guy named Jesus existed, during the biblical time period walked the earth, spoke to people, issued the Golden Rule, was crucified....that could all be true, yet is absolutely zero proof that he was a god, son of a god, our "savior," any of that. He has an issue with straw men.


I can see that. 

I just love Christian history, especially early Christian history and I get really annoyed when people try to say things that are clearly not true. I mean it is hard enough to find information about early Christians to begin with. 30-50 CE is just a black hole. They have no idea what was going on with Christians. It was a huge discovery when they found the Gnostic Gospels though. There were so many different ideas of what it was to be a Christian. It's awesome.


----------



## changedbeliefs

What is it about "Christian history" you love? History is just history. There isn't Christian math, or Christian physics. History is simply documented events. The history of Jesus is not clear, it is open to debate. Can I assume, what you like about history, is when it seems to corroborate a belief you have? A Christian may think, if a man named Jesus is proved to exist, then my religion and all of its beliefs must be well-founded? I think the stumbling point for non-believers is that, the ultimate construct of "god" and "religion" is an unproveable notion. There can be fact-based, intelligent debates (well, there CAN be, not saying they all are) about paleontology, geology, engineering (could the Ark actually have been built, e.g.), etc..., but all of those will never get at the issue of, does there exist this unseeable, intangible, nebulous supreme being? In essence, all of the things that would finally prove god fall OUTSIDE of all the things we would use to prove ANY other claim. This is where all discussions seem to just road block, non-believers say, "well, that's convenient, no form of proof works on god," and believers say, "exactly, that's why we believe," or some version of that.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*What is it about "Christian history" you love? History is just history.*

Well, I think most historians get excited about a particular type of history. My dad loves the civil war, my friend is into WWII. Even scientists will focus on a particular type of science that they especially love. Biology vs. Physics. 

I love religion in general. My undergraduate degree is in comparative religious studies. But I was raised Christian, my father is a minister and I knew a lot about Christianity going into my studies. But Christian history is just fascinating. In the beginning, of course, they didn’t have a lot of power in a Roman society. And they were interacting with Greek, Roman, and Hebrew cultures. Something about Christianity at that time excited some people. And that’s fascinating to me. And then, of course, Constantine made the church official and the church became part of the power of the state. 

It’s so complex, really. There has always been this interaction between Government and people’s spirituality. They don’t always match. But people in power love religion and they use it to maintain power. Karl Marx said that religion is “the opiate of the masses.” And I agree with that. It can be that. But it can be more than that too. The individual experience someone has of their faith is very different than what governments use to maintain power through religion. I think I love studying that interaction. It fascinates me. Why were particular books chosen for the Bible? Even within those books chosen we have a compassionate Jesus who cared about the poor, and women, and Samaritans – the outcasts of society. So what fell out when Constantine took the church over? What didn’t match with those images of the monarch Jesus? And how did people live that differently? It’s really interesting to me. And I love Mary and all of the Marian imagery in art in the middle ages. I love European art from the middle ages.

*Can I assume, what you like about history, is when it seems to corroborate a belief you have? A Christian may think, if a man named Jesus is proved to exist, then my religion and all of its beliefs must be well-founded?*

If we could prove that Jesus did not exist would that mean I would have to change religious traditions? I don’t know. Jesus is a construct in a lot of ways anyway. That’s a good question, though. It wouldn’t change my belief in God. But I might have to redefine what that is. I don’t think I can ultimately know who God is anyway. It’s impossible, IMO, to really know who God is. In the Hebrew Bible, YHWH, only means “I am who I am.” What does that mean? Basically that means that God is mystery. I can have a taste of who God is in meditation but I can’t ultimately know who God is.

*but all of those will never get at the issue of, does there exist this unseeable, intangible, nebulous supreme being?*

I find that fantastic. I think mystery in life is awesome. It allows me to release control. And I’m kind of a control freak so I need that. Not saying anything about you so don’t take that to mean that I am saying anything about your experience. I just see God as being mystery and I need that in my life.


----------



## changedbeliefs

I really appreciate your taking the time to discuss this; while there are things I can't relate to, inherently, at least this is civil and, I think, respectful.

To another point I raised (maybe it was another thread, I'm not sure), though, as to when reality can really highlight the negative aspects of religion, I present:

After 'much prayer', doctor refuses to see 6-day-old baby because she has two moms

A doctor refused to treat a baby because its moms are gay. While this is just some office visit, one can only assume this doctor's beliefs would hold if it were an urgent issue. Can you imagine? Purporting to stand on religious/moral high ground while you allowed a human being to potentially die or suffer? I can't imagine anything LESS moral.


----------



## Pooh Bear

changedbeliefs said:


> I really appreciate your taking the time to discuss this; while there are things I can't relate to, inherently, at least this is civil and, I think, respectful.
> 
> To another point I raised (maybe it was another thread, I'm not sure), though, as to when reality can really highlight the negative aspects of religion, I present:
> 
> After 'much prayer', doctor refuses to see 6-day-old baby because she has two moms
> 
> A doctor refused to treat a baby because its moms are gay. While this is just some office visit, one can only assume this doctor's beliefs would hold if it were an urgent issue. Can you imagine? Purporting to stand on religious/moral high ground while you allowed a human being to potentially die or suffer? I can't imagine anything LESS moral.


Wow. That's heartbreaking. I don't really understand why a doctor would refuse to see anyone unless maybe the person had threatened to kill you or something. I agree with you that that is immoral. Luckily this was just a new baby check up so the baby wasn't in danger of dying. I live in the US and I have a real problem with people bringing their religious beliefs into the secular realm. The government has no right to tell you how to practice your beliefs but neither do you have a right to bring your religious understanding out into the public square. I think that line has been crossed recently at the behest of the supreme court and it concerns me greatly. It's always kind of a back and forth in the US though. Where do you live?


----------



## TheTruthHurts

woundedwarrior said:


> That is remarkable. The Catholic church usually won't marry couples of different denominations, much less an atheist. My first wife was a Nazarene and that was the only reason I was granted an annulment, even though she cheated on me as well.


Sorry late to the threadhere... just reading from the beginning but this struck me as a misunderstanding. I was married in a Catholic church - my wife had a priest and I had a minister. That was in the 1980's in a conservative Catholic church. It is absolutely acceptable. I think the Priest got a dispensation from a bishop or something - didn't involve me so I didn't worry about it - but it was no problem at all. Except of course the people who attended - the Catholics thought it was a non-catholic wedding because it was so brief and the non-catholics assumed it was Catholic since it was so long. Very amusing :laugh:


----------



## EunuchMonk

*2 Corinthians 6:14 (New International Version) 'Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?'*

If you are deliberately disobeying this I _don't _believe you are a hypocritical Christian. I don't. You are likely not a Christian at all. You are likely a nominal Christian which sadly I believe makes up for the majority of Christianity today. People who observe the form of godliness but do not have a personal love-relationship with Christ. John 14:15 (New International Version) '*If you love me, keep my commandments*.'

Why am I posting this? Just a little enlightenment for those saying Christians and non-Christians can purposefully get into marriage relationships. Not if you want to obey God! Of course, if you were already married to a non-Christian when you got married, the bible says you shouldn't divorce them if they want to remain married to you (1 Corinthians 7: 12-13).


----------



## TheTruthHurts

EunuchMonk said:


> *2 Corinthians 6:14 (New International Version) 'Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?'*
> 
> If you are deliberately disobeying this I _don't _believe you are a hypocritical Christian. I don't. You are likely not a Christian at all. You are likely a nominal Christian which sadly I believe makes up for the majority of Christianity today. People who observe the form of godliness but do not have a personal love-relationship with Christ. John 14:15 (New International Version) '*If you love me, keep my commandments*.'
> 
> Why am I posting this? Just a little enlightenment for those saying Christians and non-Christians can purposefully get into marriage relationships. Not if you want to obey God! Of course, if you were already married to a non-Christian when you got married, the bible says you shouldn't divorce them if they want to remain married to you (1 Corinthians 7: 12-13).


Believer not Christian. You're rewriting the bible.


----------



## EunuchMonk

TheTruthHurts said:


> Believer not Christian. You're rewriting the bible.


That is what the bible considers a believer -- a Christian (believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour). They are one and the same.


----------



## froggy7777

Just want to say; THANK GOD I NEVER GOT RELIGION OR TO SAY BECAME RELIGIOUS. Yes, became a CHRISTIAN. a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RELIGIOUS AND CHRISTIANITY.


----------



## EunuchMonk

Thank God, Christianity is the TRUE RELIGION!


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Thank God, Christianity is the TRUE RELIGION!


Thank you for illustrating why being religious and being spiritual are not the same thing.


----------



## EunuchMonk

EnigmaGirl said:


> Thank you for illustrating why being religious and being spiritual are not the same thing.


No problemo.


----------



## just4mel

I am dealing with the EXACT situation right now. After 5 1/2 years I got blind sided with my fiance finding God, apparently in just the past few weeks. He's made a few comments in the past days, but he officially told me Jesus came to him a few days ago. He's suddenly reading the bible, watching YouTube video's, and constantly talking about it. I can't explain why I feel so devastated about this. When he told me I felt like he was ending our relationship. Which is not the case. According to him he feels more in love with me than before. Why am I feeling so betrayed? This man is the love of my life. I don't understand why I am so unwilling to support him in this. I'm so lost and terrified of losing him. I just don't have those religious beliefs or feelings.. A higher power? Maybe.. but giving myself to God and/or Jesus? It's not me. It never has been. It never was for him either. 

What was your outcome after this?


----------

