Could you go out with a religeous person?

Tar.Aldarion

His soul is in danger, he could die at any time and suffer for eternity imo.

Handsome Bob

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

His soul is in danger, he could die at any time and suffer for eternity imo.

As I said, perhaps naively, she thinks her BF has a life time to eventually see the light.

Zillah

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Where's the fact in assuming she doesn't care for her boyfriend? She respects his beliefs and she understands that she won't be able to persuade him to covert.

I didn't assert that she doesn't care for her boyfriend. She has made several mutually exclusive claims and I've proposed some potential solutions. On one hand she claims she cares very much for her boyfriend, and yet on the other she's not doing anything to save him from a fate worse than a thousand deaths. Three come to mind: She doesn't care for her boyfriend very much, OR, she doesn't really believe he'll go to Hell, OR she just hasn't thought about it very much and can maintain these two mutually exclusive notions in her head.

Also, you are once again baselessly asserting that she believes it is impossible to convert him. We don't know if she believes that, and I would argue that even if she did she has a moral obligation to try. I'll once again refer you to the falling piano metaphor; the fact that you suspect you'll not get there in time is no reason to not try.

Again she won't judge, as the I pointed out earlier from the "cast the stone" quote.

And again, this has nothing at all to do with judgement. If you push someone out of the way of an oncoming truck it doesn't mean you're making a moral judgement of them for having been in front of the truck. Stop repeating this argument please, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's like arguing that Obama's economic policies are bad because the sky is blue, there is no connection between these concepts.

Immediate danger anyone? That's the consequence of a leathal overdose, not the quite same as being agnostic at a certain time in life. Maybe she's not preaching to him because she believes they have a long lifespan together, and albeit perhaps naively, she is willing to settle and hope that eventually he'll "see the light" on his own.

She did indeed express a hope that he would come around on his own. I think it's unforgivably irresponsible to take such a lacklustre stance when we are taking about eternal torment.

Which is why I would, if I were a gambling man, put my money on the guess that she actually has no real belief in Hell and hence can take such a casual approach.

Handsome Bob

Yes, I am the only one acting as if I'm inside midlandsmissus's head Zillah. Anyone with half a brain should see that you are basing your opinions on assumptions just as much as I am apparently.

I'm cutting this off here Zillah because this is going around in circles, I won't be posting here again.

<cue the I won the argument from the Zillah>

Zillah

I won.

the_syco

Dave! wrote: »

referenced god/jesus on a regular basis

I hope women don't have this hang up. I make references to Jesus all the time. Also to his two bothers, Jeasus, and f**king Christ

TBH, I wouldn't mind. The three I wouldn't stand would be a) creationist b) tree-hugging lefie c) born again Shinner. The rest, can be handled.

pseudonym1

WOW I m shocked!
So many people wouldnt go out with somebody just because they were somewhat religious! Definition of what constitutes religious is not completely clear tbh Unless they're some bible quoting nut job or extreme beleivers why should it matter?
Always took atheists agnostic to be a rational liberal if not smug bunch.

The latter still holds but is any of it due to perhaps slight annoyance that somone can have a relationship /understand something that is beyond your comprehension..

Should nt matter what affiliation someone you like and care about has - its just a little piece of them and hardly focus of main concern.

What I choose to beleive is something personal for me and dont feel the need to harp on about it -but if I meet someone that ticks the rest of the boxes I dont think what they beleive in would come into it- shouldn t be that relevent in a great relationship!

Obviously extreme religions are excluded.

DapperGent

I could certainly fúck someone who was religious but I don't think I'd brag about it.

As for sustaining a relationship with someone who was even slightly religious, there is just no way, no way, like no way at all. Like none of the ways are open. It is wayless.

Goduznt Xzst

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Goduznt,

Such a personal question. I presume you will also be telling me about your own sex life!!.

Well, giving that I only became a Christian in the last year, and I am 25, I'm not a virgin.

What are your views on that then? I'm sure they'll be sharp and hard to read, but I'll put myself through it!

As far as im aware this is not an unforgivable sin.

No that wasn't my question, but it helps me expand further on what I originally asked which was:

"How has your agnostic boyfriend responded to your celibacy?"

I'm assuming since you became a Christian you have prayed for forgiveness for giving into the sins of the flesh and are now celibate. How has your agnostic boyfriend responded to this? Especially considering that he would know you have been with other guys before but won't be with him until he marries you. This would, and does, put a lot of pressure on even the strictest of Christians couples, let alone a couple that shares different beliefs in this regard.

I'm just curious as to how you both have overcome this physical hurdle?

midlandsmissus

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

No that wasn't my question, but it helps me expand further on what I originally asked which was:

"How has your agnostic boyfriend responded to your celibacy?"

I'm assuming since you became a Christian you have prayed for forgiveness for giving into the sins of the flesh and are now celibate. How has your agnostic boyfriend responded to this? Especially considering that he would know you have been with other guys before but won't be with him until he marries you. This would, and does, put a lot of pressure on even the strictest of Christians couples, let alone a couple that shares different beliefs in this regard.

I'm just curious as to how you both have overcome this physical hurdle?

Dear Goduznt, I find it amazing how you think something is the case, and then automatically assume something about me, without asking. "Especially considering that he would know you have been with other guys before". Nice sweeping assumption there, but you are wrong. He is my first and only boyfriend.

Goduznt Xzst

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Dear Goduznt, I find it amazing how you think something is the case, and then automatically assume something about me, without asking. "Especially considering that he would know you have been with other guys before". Nice sweeping assumption there, but you are wrong. He is my first and only boyfriend.

Ah well that explains it then, the person you have slept with is the person you are dating. Have you since stopped sleeping with him since becoming Christian or are you a have-my-cake-and-eat-it Christian, whereby you do whatever you want, pray for forgiveness after and then still assume God's going to grant you immortality.

Tim Robbins

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

have-my-cake-and-eat-it Christian, whereby you do whatever you want, pray for forgiveness after and then still assume God's going to grant you immortality.

Bad argument. If she is a "have-my-cake-and-eat-it" so what?
Secondly, as has been said, because there is consistent agreement as what the fullness of the meaning of Christianity means, every Christian is going to be a "have-my-cate-and-eat-it" depending on what perspective you look at them from.
Thirdly, have-my-cake-and-eat-it is derogatory language. You are putting a negative spin on her position. You could have easily have said flexible Christian and put a positive spin on it.

Goduznt Xzst

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You could have easily have said flexible Christian and put a positive spin on it.

Most Christians would feel a person who claims to be a Christian but who also has premeditated premarital sex is living a life of sin. If midlandsmissus is a member of a denomination that allows permarital sex I'd be interested in learning of it and how they justify it.

If they are choosing to ignore this and make up their own personalized religion and beliefs they are doing so so that they can get the benefits of that religion without making the necessary changes to their own life ergo they are trying to have their cake and eat it. There is nothing negative about that addage, it is perfectly apt.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Most Christians would feel a person who claims to be a Christian but who also has premeditated premarital sex is living a life of sin.

So what exactly is your point? All Christians 'sin' according to their doctrine, and would never claim otherwise.

The fact that you are aware something is a sin but still do it doesn't mean you are not a Christian, just a sinner, like every other one. What is it to you whether midlandsmissus transgresses certain rules of her religion of which you are not a part of?

This is all getting a bit pedantic.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

What is it to you whether midlandsmissus transgresses certain rules of her religion of which you are not a part of?

What it is, is an explanation as to why midlandsmissus thinks it is odd that an Atheist would not date someone Religious, the reason for her original foray into this thread. There are many reasons why such a relationship wouldn't work, specifically for Christians would be the issue of celibacy with a partner who didn't agree with it.

The fact that she doesn't adhere to this restriction explains how she can easily have a relationship with someone who isn't Religious and for it to work.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What it is, is an explanation as to why midlandsmissus thinks it is odd that an Atheist would not date someone Religious, the reason for her original foray into this thread.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The fact that she doesn't adhere to this restriction explains how she can easily have a relationship with someone who isn't Religious and for it to work.

Haven't you answered your own question here?

In which case it appears then that the purpose of this line of questioning is to show her how she doesn't fit into your definition of "religious" for this thread because she isn't celibate.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

midlandsmissus

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Most Christians would feel a person who claims to be a Christian but who also has premeditated premarital sex is living a life of sin. If midlandsmissus is a member of a denomination that allows permarital sex I'd be interested in learning of it and how they justify it.

If they are choosing to ignore this and make up their own personalized religion and beliefs they are doing so so that they can get the benefits of that religion without making the necessary changes to their own life ergo they are trying to have their cake and eat it. There is nothing negative about that addage, it is perfectly apt.

Dear Goduznt,

I was trying to reply to you yesterday, but Boards seemed to go crazy and kept saying 'your message is too short' even though it was long. Has this ever happened to anyone else?

Anyways, I certainly wouldn't say I have my cake and eat it. I don't smoke, do drugs, gamble, sleep around, never had an affair, always try to think of the other person, work in a caring profession. I would say I do my best at living a moral life.

Being human, of course I slip up sometimes. It would be impossible not to. Name one person who has never slipped up..

Quid pro quo: Why are you so bitter about religion? I take it you were once christian yourself? Why not live and let live?

midlandsmissus

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What it is, is an explanation as to why midlandsmissus thinks it is odd that an Atheist would not date someone Religious, the reason for her original foray into this thread. There are many reasons why such a relationship wouldn't work, specifically for Christians would be the issue of celibacy with a partner who didn't agree with it.

The fact that she doesn't adhere to this restriction explains how she can easily have a relationship with someone who isn't Religious and for it to work.

The only reason you brought this up, is because of the age old thing atheists do: press some-one on every single point of christianity until they find one aspect you don't adhere to, and then say, 'well if you don't do that how can you call yourself a christian, your arguments are now futile'. At least be honest about it!

Zombrex

pseudonym1 wrote: »

WOW I m shocked!
So many people wouldnt go out with somebody just because they were somewhat religious!

Not quite sure what that would shock someone. I know people who won't go out with someone is they support the wrong football team, and a persons religion is a far more personal issue than that.

At the end of the day you have to have both a physical and mental connection with someone. If a person has a whole side to their existence that you find silly and irrational, I can certainly see that being a bit problem for any chance of a long term relationship.

You say "Obviously extreme religions are excluded.", so I think you actually understand perfectly well why someone would not want to go out with someone who is religious, you just have a different tolerance level (are you yourself religious). One mans "extreme religion" is another mans child making their Communion

Zombrex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Most Christians would feel a person who claims to be a Christian but who also has premeditated premarital sex is living a life of sin. Em, have you looked around Ireland today? Who believes that anymore?

Well yeah, but then I seriously doubt most people in Ireland properly believe in Christianity any more. They appear to be more "cultural Catholics" than people who actually believe in the doctrine of Christianity.

Premarital sex is mentioned all over the Bible, Old and New Testaments, as being quite sinful. It isn't that people have determined from a theological point of view that this doesn't hold any more, it is simply that they either are not aware of this or not really that serious about their Christian beliefs.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't that people have determined from a theological point of view that this doesn't hold any more, it is simply that they either are not aware of this or not really that serious about their Christian beliefs.

Are they the only two options to describe a Christian that has sex with a long term partner? Wouldn't that indicate that to be a serious Christian you have to be sin-free?

midlandsmissus

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yeah, but then I seriously doubt most people in Ireland properly believe in Christianity any more. They appear to be more "cultural Catholics" than people who actually believe in the doctrine of Christianity.

Premarital sex is mentioned all over the Bible, Old and New Testaments, as being quite sinful. It isn't that people have determined from a theological point of view that this doesn't hold any more, it is simply that they either are not aware of this or not really that serious about their Christian beliefs.

Wicknight, I have read the bible aswell. And it says the only unforgivable sin is speaking against the holy ghost. Other sins of the flesh are forgivable. I'm prepared to take my chances, I feel okay with it in my mind, specifically as my boyfriend and I are planning to marry within the next few years. I would call him my fiance but he's out of the country for work at the minute and we're going to get engaged when he comes back. I just don't think god is going to to look at me sleeping with the man I married, before we got married as the worst thing I could have done. Of course I would never ever say I am guaranteed a place in heaven, it's not up to me, and I face the unknown as much as anyone else.

Zombrex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Wicknight, I have read the bible aswell. And it says the only unforgivable sin is speaking against the holy ghost. Other sins of the flesh are forgivable.

They are forgivable but you have to repent and try not to do them anymore (this applies to all sin). I've never heard of a Christian interpretation that says you can keep doing what ever sin you like and you will be forgiven at the end of it all.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm prepared to take my chances, I feel okay with it in my mind, specifically as my boyfriend and I are planning to marry within the next few years.

Well again this was my point. You are either unaware that this isn't actually Christian teaching, or you don't care.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I just don't think god is going to to look at me sleeping with the man I married, before we got married as the worst thing I could have done.

That is largely irrelevant. That isn't how Christianity works, at least not the Christianity I'm aware of.

It doesn't matter the things you have done (everyone sins), it matters how sorry you are and how you seek repentance. You are heading to hell otherwise. You can't really be seeking repentance if you happily keep doing the stuff you are not supposed to do with no acknowledgment that you shouldn't be doing them.

If you say something along the line of I don't think God minds if I keep doing the thing he told me not to do for a couple more years because it isn't really that bad in the first place then that isn't really Christianity. There are a few parables of Jesus that go exactly against this line of thinking.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Are they the only two options to describe a Christian that has sex with a long term partner? Wouldn't that indicate that to be a serious Christian you have to be sin-free?

No, to be a "serious Christian" you have to recognize that it is a sin and try hard not to do it.

This is where the whole "Catholic guilt" thing comes from, the giving in in the lust of passion and feeling really bad about it afterwards because it was "wrong"

Ironically as the "young people" (ie anyone under 60) of Ireland rebelled against the idea that the Catholic church some how had some right to make them feel guilty about what they were doing with relation to sex this also lead to a large amount of people actually abandoning some pretty core Christian values, such as the idea that God himself actually has the right to tell you what they were doing with relation to sex.

So you end up with this rather wishy-washy version of Christianity where people hold that if some Christian teaching sounds like too much of a kill-joy, then it probably isn't what God himself wanted. The vast majority of my "Catholic" friends are like this.

A lot of Irish Catholics don't actually want to be Christians, it is too restrictive. They would much rather have the benefits of Christianity (particularly heaven) without actually having to go with out. I think the benefits is what stops most of them just becoming atheists.

midlandsmissus

Wicknight wrote: »

They are forgivable but you have to repent and try not to do them anymore (this applies to all sin). I've never heard of a Christian interpretation that says you can keep doing what ever sin you like and you will be forgiven at the end of it all.


Well again this was my point. You are either unaware that this isn't actually Christian teaching, or you don't care.


That is largely irrelevant. That isn't how Christianity works, at least not the Christianity I'm aware of.

It doesn't matter the things you have done (everyone sins), it matters how sorry you are and how you seek repentance. You can't really be seeking repentance if you happily keep doing the stuff you are not supposed to do with no awareness that you shouldn't be doing it.

If you say something along the line of I don't think God minds if I keep doing the thing he told me not to do for a couple more years because it isn't really that bad in the first place then that isn't really Christianity. There are a few parables of Jesus that go exactly against this line of thinking.

You can't really be seeking repentance if you happily keep doing the stuff you are not supposed to do with no awareness that you shouldn't be doing it.

Well Wicknight,

If you really want to go into minute detail. I do feel sorry about it, and we arent doing anything at all seeing as he is away for a year. This is the last I will talk about my sex life, as it is just going to be more questions until I get to the point I am uncomfortable in answering, cheers.

midlandsmissus

"So you end up with this rather wishy-washy version of Christianity where people hold that if some Christian teaching sounds like too much of a kill-joy, then it probably isn't what God himself wanted. The vast majority of my "Catholic" friends are like this."

Maybe it's just something they personally disagree with. Maybe they go out of their way to do other good things.I certainly do go out and do things that I don't want to do in order to help other people, so i wouldnt say Im taking a relaxed, lazy approach to life.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

No, to be a "serious Christian" you have to recognize that it is a sin and try hard not to do it.

What I don't understand is why yourself and Goduznt Xzst are jumping in to judge midlandsmissus, under rules which you don't subscribe to, when from the outset she has never claimed to be seriously religious, and has made it clear she has no wish to force her beliefs on anyone.

Are we that starved of sheep to wrestle from the shepherd?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

They are forgivable but you have to repent and try not to do them anymore (this applies to all sin). I've never heard of a Christian interpretation that says you can keep doing what ever sin you like and you will be forgiven at the end of it all.

It's not that often that Wicknight and I agree on anything, but he's right on the button this time.

Christian repentance is not merely saying sorry, but involves a change of behaviour.

Abstinence from pre-marital sexual relations is certainly practised by many Christians today in Ireland. Although I was very sexually active prior to my conversion, after becoming a Christian I remained celibate up to my wedding night (over 5 years). Both my wife and I believe this was the right choice and we certainly don't regret that we made the effort to live like Christians rather than just carry the name of Christians.

Malari

Dades wrote: »

Are we that starved of sheep to wrestle from the shepherd?

I just wanted to say I LOVE this image

And Midlandmissus seems to be a bit victimised in this thread. Whether she wants to call herself religious or christian, and what she does that may or may not slot neatly under those headings doesn't really matter. It's more about belief in god really I think.