Could you go out with a religeous person?

Zombrex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I do feel sorry about it, and we arent doing anything at all seeing as he is away for a year.

Well now you are just contradicting yourself. You feel sorry about it but you are still doing it and you don't think God minds and you feel ok about it?

I don't giving a flying fig what you do with your sex life, and I don't mean this as a slag, simply as a matter of fact comment, but this is exactly the sort of thing that puts a lot of atheists/non-believers off the idea of going out with a religious person.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Maybe it's just something they personally disagree with.

I'm sure it is. But you don't get to "personally disagree" with God, do you?

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Maybe they go out of their way to do other good things.

Irrelevant. It isn't a question of building up enough points (good things) to get into heaven. Christianity already teaches you are not worthy of getting into heaven, you only get in because of Jesus' sacrifice and God's grace/forgiveness and your repentance.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

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.

Because I wouldn't want to go out with her/him ... and the purpose of this thread is explaining why atheists may not want to go out with a religious person.

The assertion given a few times is that there is no good reason to not want to go out with a religious person. Based on this little back and forth I can think of several.

Again that sounds like a big slag, it really isn't meant to be. I'm sure midlandsmissus wouldn't want to go out with me either (the arrogant fecker that I am).

The purpose is to simply highlight that midlandsmissus attitude to religion (which is shared by quite a lot of religious people these days) would wreck my head if I was going out with her. That could well be my problem, but there you go.

While I totally disagree with Christianity, I would probably find it easier to go out with someone like PDN who actually takes his religion as it is.

Zombrex

Malari wrote: »

It's more about belief in god really I think.

what is the "it's" you refer to?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

While I totally disagree with Christianity, I would probably find it easier to go out with someone like PDN who actually takes his religion as it is.

Thank you Wicknight, I had no idea you felt that way. I'm flattered, but if I took my religion as it is then I wouldn't go out with another man. :eek:

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

While I totally disagree with Christianity, I would probably find it easier to go out with someone like PDN who actually takes his religion as it is.

No offence Wicknight - but I totally, completely, do not believe that.

As you've already alluded to, most Irish "Christians (read: Catholics)" are of the a la carte variety. So to suggest you'd go out with a celebate Christian over your average common-or-garden Irish lass is stretching it imo.

Malari

Wicknight wrote: »

what is the "it's" you refer to?

The "religious" description in the thread. At least that's what I inferred. If someone describes themselves as religious the first thing I know about them is they believe in a god. That for me, is enough. I don't really care what little rules they do or don't enforce in their religious lives.

midlandsmissus

Wicknight, you know what, you're right, you would drive me mad if I went out with you too!

Goduznt Xzst

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Em, have you looked around Ireland today? Who believes that anymore? I believe it was a fear originally instilled in young people by the catholic church to have more control over them, and I certainly wouldn't call myself a catholic.

It doesn't matter who "believes it anymore", the Bible hasn't changed (at least not in the last few generations :rolleyes:), peoples willingness to obey it has. As societies opinions change so will their understanding of the Bible to fit this.

You are of a generation who believes that God doesn't care much about premarital sex, even still you'd probably imagine a person who claims to be a Christian but who sleeps with a new man every night as less spiritual than you.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Oh come on Goduznt. This is a ridiculous argument. As if you really expected me to be celibate.

I honestly did. Coming off your thread about whether or not you could be forgiven I thought you where an individual worried about making more mistakes that might hamper your chances of getting immortality.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

You know if you went into a relationship with a Christian they wouldnt be celibate. That is not the done thing in todays times. People were very afraid of the catholic church long ago and they are not anymore.

It's really nothing to do with fear of the Catholic Church, most if not all Christian denominations view it as a serious sin if premeditated.

Dades wrote: »

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.

Don't forget Zillah

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

There are such interpretations, generally known as "once-saved-always-saved" -- OSAS for short.

I believe that there are a few christian posters here who assert OSAS: JC, rtdh and a few more (am obviously open to correction here).

midlandsmissus

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It doesn't matter who "believes it anymore", the Bible hasn't changed (at least not in the last few generations :rolleyes:), peoples willingness to obey it has. As societies opinions change so will their understanding of the Bible to fit this.

You are of a generation who believes God has no problem with premarital sex, even still you'd probably imagine a person who claims to be a Christian but who sleeps with a new man every night as less spiritual than you.



I honestly did. Coming off your thread about whether or not you could be forgiven I thought you where an individual worried about making more mistakes that might hamper your chances of getting immortality.



It's really nothing to do with fear of the Catholic Church, most if not all Christian denominations view it as a serious sin if premeditated. Again can you name the denomination you are a member of that says premarital sex is allowed?



Don't forget Zillah

Goduznt,

Maybe you could just give me a break. I have recently turned Christian, so I am trying to still learn everything. I actually am celibate at the moment, though it is due to geographical location rather than choice.I dont know how I'll feel when my boyfriend gets back.

I was very tempted there to say to Wicknight that 'Ha I am celibate and repenting!' but it would be a lie as it isn't down to choice. I can say honestly I do feel bad about doing it before marriage, I am not doing it at the minute so I have time to mull over it, and I have to do more research into everything.

'even still you'd probably imagine a person who claims to be a Christian but who sleeps with a new man every night as less spiritual than you.'

I wouldn't think of them as less spiritual than me at all. It's not for me to judge anyone else.

midlandsmissus

Wicknight wrote: »

Because I wouldn't want to go out with her/him ... and the purpose of this thread is explaining why atheists may not want to go out with a religious person.

The assertion given a few times is that there is no good reason to not want to go out with a religious person. Based on this little back and forth I can think of several.

Again that sounds like a big slag, it really isn't meant to be. I'm sure midlandsmissus wouldn't want to go out with me either (the arrogant fecker that I am).

The purpose is to simply highlight that midlandsmissus attitude to religion (which is shared by quite a lot of religious people these days) would wreck my head if I was going out with her. That could well be my problem, but there you go.

While I totally disagree with Christianity, I would probably find it easier to go out with someone like PDN who actually takes his religion as it is.

Wicknight,

Basically you're saying that unless some-one follows the religion to the letter you wouldn't go out with them. So you'd go out with an extreme Christian then? No you wouldn't, and that is where you are full of contradictions.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

No offence Wicknight - but I totally, completely, do not believe that.

Easier I said, rather than easy. You know, the way I would find it easier to withstand torture if I was having my toenails ripped out rather than a drill into my arm. :pac::pac:

Dades wrote: »

As you've already alluded to, most Irish "Christians (read: Catholics)" are of the a la carte variety. So to suggest you'd go out with a celebate Christian over your average common-or-garden Irish lass is stretching it imo.

Well that implies sex is the most important thing...

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that implies sex is the most important thing...

... in the list of things frowned upon by the church. Which is what this is all about, no?

Tim Robbins

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.

Not sure where your evidence for that is.
Would you like to produce it?

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.

Follow the debate on homosexuality in the Anglican Church. It's good example of all this.

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.

Christianity is very much a subjective paradigm. So many denominations, interpretations and translations. All you are doing is treating something as if it's immune from these characteristics and then treating this lady like a hypocrite by putting a negative spin on it.

Gambler

Not sure where your evidence for that is.
Would you like to produce it?

http://www.layhands.com/IsPremaritalSexASin.htm
http://www.new-life.net/premarital.htm
http://www.bible.ca/s-premarital-sex.htm

A small sampling of the millions of sites

Zillah

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Don't forget Zillah

Ah here now, I was never beating her up about her religion's internal rules. I just thinks she's worse than Hitler for letting her boyfriend go to Hell :pac:

Stercus Accidit

My answer to OP, no.

Though I wouldn't go out with a dunce in the first place so a bit of logical conversation later and a new happy free athiest/agnostic is born, I can respect either.

Tim Robbins

Gambler wrote: »

http://www.layhands.com/IsPremaritalSexASin.htm
http://www.new-life.net/premarital.htm
http://www.bible.ca/s-premarital-sex.htm

A small sampling of the millions of sites

And here's "a small sampling of the millions of sites which endorse creationism":

http://www.creationmuseum.org/
http://www.wikihow.com/Defend-Creationism-Against-Evolutionism
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

So by your logic, most Christians believe that too.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

... in the list of things frowned upon by the church.

no, in the things I look for in a partner

PDN

robindch wrote: »

There are such interpretations, generally known as "once-saved-always-saved" -- OSAS for short.

I believe that there are a few christian posters here who assert OSAS: JC, rtdh and a few more (am obviously open to correction here).

While I do not hold to the OSAS doctrine, in fairness to those who do it should be pointed out that their beliefs are a bit more nuanced than that.

Most adherents to OSAS would believe that someone who claimed to be a Christian and then practised gross sin was actually demonstrating that their conversion was a sham in the first place.

I've never actually met a Christian who believed that someone could be a genuine believer, then practice immorality, yet still retain their salvation. However, if you were to look hard enough (probably in Mississippi or Texas) then you might find such a person.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I've never actually met a Christian who believed that someone could be a genuine believer, then practice immorality, yet still retain their salvation. However, if you were to look hard enough (probably in Mississippi or Texas) then you might find such a person.

But I think your definition of Christian would differ to others. I consider myself to have used to have been a Christian but you don't. Also, morality is also a subjective term. Even in a Christian sense. You can divorce if you are a Protestant but not if you are a Catholic. I know, I am beginning to sound like I just sounded in another post. I am reading this book at the moment. It's just excellent. Book of the year. Recommended. Even to all the Christians.

Gambler

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And here's "a small sampling of the millions of sites which endorse creationism":

http://www.creationmuseum.org/
http://www.wikihow.com/Defend-Creationism-Against-Evolutionism
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

So by your logic, most Christians believe that too.

From what I can see get enough christians together that believe pre marital sex is a sin they do end up mostly believing in creationism too:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

Gambler

I should add that by calling yourself a christian you say that you believe the teachings and lend your name to that organisation (like joining a union only with unions you all get to vote on big decisions).

Show me a number of christian faiths that teach pre marital sex isn't a sin and that have a total number of followers bigger than the christian faiths that teach that it is a sin..

This is the biggest problem I have with people that call themselves christian without thinking about the consequence of that action. You may have no problem with premarital sex but by calling yourself a christian you allow your church to say "We have x million members who belief pre marital sex is a sin so the only sex education you should have in school is abstinence programs" and then you wonder how you end up with situations like we have in america where the only federal funding schools can get for sex ed is if they make it abstinence only!

Tim Robbins

Gambler wrote: »

I should add that by calling yourself a christian you say that you believe the teachings and lend your name to that organisation (like joining a union only with unions you all get to vote on big decisions).

I was speaking to a learned friend recently who told me there are over 300 different versions of that organisation each with their own slant in Northern Ireland alone.

The problem with some of these people, they are so imbued in their own slant they think that is no at all.

Show me a number of christian faiths that teach pre marital sex isn't a sin and that have a total number of followers bigger than the christian faiths that teach that it is a sin..

I am not going to check the 300 versions in Northen Ireland and the hundreds of versions around the globe, if that's ok.

This is the biggest problem I have with people that call themselves christian without thinking about the consequence of that action. You may have no problem with premarital sex but by calling yourself a christian you allow your church to say "We have x million members who belief pre marital sex is a sin so the only sex education you should have in school is abstinence programs" and then you wonder how you end up with situations like we have in america where the only federal funding schools can get for sex ed is if they make it abstinence only!

There's no consequence to what you call yourself. There are consequences to what you do and what you don't do.

That said, I agree there are big problems not promoting the use of condoms and Churches have, in some respects been at fault for this.

Gambler

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was speaking to a learned friend recently who told me there are over 300 different versions of that organisation each with their own slant in Northern Ireland alone.

The problem with some of these people, they are so imbued in their own slant they think that is no at all.

Yes, but I would dare say that there are certain principals that are shared across the majority of them..

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am not going to check the 300 versions in Northen Ireland and the hundreds of versions around the globe, if that's ok.

Hey, I never thought you would, my point is that from what I know of there are no christian churches that actually say pre-marital sex is not a sin, if there were I'm sure there would have been a load of press from all the other faiths saying all sorts of things :P

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's no consequence to what you call yourself. There are consequences to what you do and what you don't do.

That said, I agree there are big problems not promoting the use of condoms and Churches have, in some respects been at fault for this.

I'm sorry but I take huge issue with this. Of course there are more direct consequences that you can see yourself in what you do and don't do but you can't honestly claim there are no consequences to lending your name to a cause.

Signing a petition saying that we should rename Ireland "Little England" would be no different (to me) than joining a religion or political party that has that as one of it's aims.

The core of my point is that if you call yourself a christian (or a muslim, budhist, jew or any other religion) you announce that you support a set of beliefs about how people should lead their life.

If you tell me you don't think that pre marital sex is a sin, that a woman has a right to choose, that evolution happened all on its own without any "help" from a greater power, that a couple should be allowed to divorce and remarry, that gays should have a right to marry or any other one of a hundred different generally commonly held beliefs then I don't see how you can say you are a christian..

(By the way, I'm not necessarily saying this to Tim Robbins, I mean this in a general way to anyone)

missyb

Hey, I go to mass on Sundays and pray every day,my boyfriend has no beliefs what so ever,nor so his family so I guess I was a surprise when he brought me home! I dont try to "convert" or "Preach" or anything of the sort! My Mother is very religious, and the most warm,open person you could meet, my dad is agnostic and considerably more stuck in his ways than my mother! My brother is completely atheist as is his wife so my niece is not christened, I totally respect their decisons as they do mine and my mothers and my dads.My sister who is also agnostic is married to a man who was raised Catholic and is now a quaker.

The people you are talking about are fundementalist who take everything literally and to the extreme, the way relgious people are described here on this thread is the same way those "bible bashers" would describe "non believers", completely stero-typical and without anytolerance or openmindedness what so ever!
I think alot of people on boards have more in common with these people than they realise. I have no time for fundementalists just as I have no time for people who cant stand anyone elses spiritual beliefs, these groups are cut from the same cloth as far as Im concerned, too alike in their bigotry and thats why they hate each other.....My family and my boyfriend are a melting pot of different beliefs/non beliefs and I love that ,the narrowmindedness of this thread astounds me!.... Alas I have to go now and say 9 million hail marys and beat myself to a pulp for I am a sinner,....thats what you expect to hear from me right!!?

Gambler

missyb wrote: »

Hey, I go to mass on Sundays and pray every day,my boyfriend has no beliefs what so ever,nor so his family so I guess I was a surprise when he brought me home! I dont try to "convert" or "Preach" or anything of the sort! My Mother is very religious, and the most warm,open person you could meet, my dad is agnostic and considerably more stuck in his ways than my mother! My brother is completely atheist as is his wife so my niece is not christened, I totally respect their decisons as they do mine and my mothers and my dads.My sister who is also agnostic is married to a man who was raised Catholic and is now a quaker.

The people you are talking about are fundementalist who take everything literally and to the extreme, the way relgious people are described here on this thread is the same way those "bible bashers" would describe "non believers", completely stero-typical and without anytolerance or openmindedness what so ever!
I think alot of people on boards have more in common with these people than they realise. I have no time for fundementalists just as I have no time for people who cant stand anyone elses spiritual beliefs, these groups are cut from the same cloth as far as Im concerned, too alike in their bigotry and thats why they hate each other.....My family and my boyfriend are a melting pot of different beliefs/non beliefs and I love that ,the narrowmindedness of this thread astounds me!.... Alas I have to go now and say 9 million hail marys and beat myself to a pulp for I am a sinner,....thats what you expect to hear from me right!!?

Hehe like everything you do get extremes on both sides, most of us just ignore the extremes

pH

Gambler wrote: »

Yes, but I would dare say that there are certain principals that are shared across the majority of them..

And I would dare say you'd be hard pressed to name one.

Gambler

pH wrote: »

And I would dare say you'd be hard pressed to name one.

There is a god and Jesus was his son?

Gambler

I do feel I should again point out I'm married to a christian. In fact her full time job is as a member of a religious choir.

I feel like people are getting the impression I am a militant anti christian or some such, that isn't the fact at all.

I did respond to what Tim Robbins said about there being no consequence to what you call yourself with my personal opinion. It's an issue that bugs me how many people call themselves catholic in Ireland without thinking about what the consequences of that decision are..