Religious Boyfriend

xLisaBx

I've been with a fella for just over a month now so it's nothing too serious yet. I really like him and hope this relationship works out, except there's a problem. He's pretty religious.
We're both 18 and I'm agnostic. He's been to Lourdes and has a few little catholic church merchandise things in his college bedroom. However he doesn't blab on about God or try to convert me.
My question is: do ye think this can work?

Sarz91

xLisaBx wrote: »

I've been with a fella for just over a month now so it's nothing too serious yet. I really like him and hope this relationship works out, except there's a problem. He's pretty religious.
We're both 18 and I'm agnostic. He's been to Lourdes and has a few little catholic church merchandise things in his college bedroom. However he doesn't blab on about God or try to convert me.
My question is: do ye think this can work?

I don't see why not. If he's respectful of your beliefs and you of his then it should be fine.

xLisaBx

Sarz91 wrote: »

I don't see why not. If he's respectful of your beliefs and you of his then it should be fine.

I guess yeah. I do respect his beliefs and he does respect mine. I dunno does he judge a little deep inside though

Orion

No offence intended but you're judging a little bit yourself. It's human nature. If you respect each other's beliefs it shouldn't be a problem.

Sarz91

xLisaBx wrote: »

I guess yeah. I do respect his beliefs and he does respect mine. I dunno does he judge a little deep inside though

That's just complete speculation. It really shouldn't matter. I've plenty of friends who are deeply (and I mean deeply, as in going on retreats and going to church* for an entire Sunday) religious but they don't judge me and I don't judge them. If he's as religious as you make out it'd be a fairly sizeable contradiction for him to judge you as forgiveness is a pretty big part of religion.

*I say church not mass as they're protestant.

Mr. CooL ICE

If you like the guy, then difference of religion ideally shouldn't come into the equation. Just go for it.

Speaking from experience, when I was about your age, I was going out with a devout religious (not christian) girl. Although we generally avoided the topic of religion, when it did come up, both of us were too stubborn to back down and led to some petty arguments. Ultimately, our difference in religious beliefs wasn't the cause of our breakup.

Arbiter of Good Taste

xLisaBx wrote: »

I guess yeah. I do respect his beliefs and he does respect mine. I dunno does he judge a little deep inside though

Sorry, but you referred to a "problem" and that he doesn't "blab on" (which doesn't sound very respectful to me to be honest). It sounds like you have a little judgment going on there yourself.

xLisaBx

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Sorry, but you referred to a "problem" and that he doesn't "blab on" (which doesn't sound very respectful to me to be honest). It sounds like you have a little judgment going on there yourself.

I'm not judging him, like I have no problem accepting his beliefs as I like him as a whole person I guess it's not really a problem. I just want people's opinions/experiences to see will this work out for me

kylith

I see no reason why you shouldn't give it a lash.

Cabaal

I'm assuming he's ok with having sex before marriage and condom usage?

Just being realistic here, the no sex before marriage is a deal breaker for alot of people.

Morgase

This is going to sound a bit horrible, so I apologise in advance. Personally, I wouldn't be able for a religious partner. The first reason being that deep down I couldn't be with someone who not only believed in god but also subscribed to a religion. The second reason being that a religious person would be unlikely to find my attitudes to religion attractive!

So - if you still like them enough as a person and find my attitudes towards the religiosity of potential partners to be strange, then perhaps it won't be a problem for you.

Czarcasm

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

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

magicbastarder

Cabaal wrote: »

Just being realistic here, the no sex before marriage is a deal breaker for alot of people.

that's easily sorted, just get married and get jiggy with it.

xLisaBx

Thanks for the advice yeah just to confirm he has no problem with sex before marriage or condoms!

Nodin

xLisaBx wrote: »

Thanks for the advice yeah just to confirm he has no problem with sex before marriage or condoms!

Obviously there's levels of religious, and types or attitudes within religion. Evidently he takes his Catholicism a la carte like many others.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

I see no reason why you shouldn't give it a lash.

I believe the RCC is officially anti-BDSM, whatever about its members

magicbastarder

why so? i thought they'd be into all the whips and chains, and 'no pleasure without pain'?

MrPudding

magicbastarder wrote: »

why so? i thought they'd be into all the whips and chains, and 'no pleasure without pain'?

Only opus dei

MrP

ScumLord

xLisaBx wrote: »

Thanks for the advice yeah just to confirm he has no problem with sex before marriage or condoms!

Well then you should be more worried about him being a hypocrite.

Its really only going to become a serious issue when it comes to raising children.

Tim Robbins

xLisaBx wrote: »

I've been with a fella for just over a month now so it's nothing too serious yet. I really like him and hope this relationship works out, except there's a problem. He's pretty religious.
We're both 18 and I'm agnostic. He's been to Lourdes and has a few little catholic church merchandise things in his college bedroom. However he doesn't blab on about God or try to convert me.
My question is: do ye think this can work?

Why couldn't it work? Unless one person really pushes their views on the other why not?

Say he liked Football and you didn't - would that be an issue? Only if he made you play.

Nodin

magicbastarder wrote: »

why so? i thought they'd be into all the whips and chains, and 'no pleasure without pain'?

'pleasure for pleasures sake' is verboten. A handy rule of thumb is to remember that unless it can lead to a Baby, its a sin.

Osvaldo

Well fair play to you sister! Remember though; he is only 18.

When I was that age I was a bit of a believer too. A few years later, I realised I was in fact an actual ape that was born onto a gloriously beautiful planet that somehow sits in in space and sh*t! As his mind develops perhaps he will change like I.

Long live the intelligent Apes (And our not as intelligent; but equally beautiful and special cousins orangutans; bonobos, chimpanzees and Gorillas) of planet earth!!

kylith

robindch wrote: »

I believe the RCC is officially anti-BDSM, whatever about its members

He could always scourge himself to atone for the pre-marital sex.

Peregrinus

He's only 18 and I'm guessing that you're a similar age.

The question of how you would raise children together is (I hope!) absolutely not on the agenda at present. Unless you have already decided - and I would strongly advise against this - that you want to settle down now with your chosen partner in life and start picking out the decor for the nursery, what you're looking for in a romantic partner is definitely not a shared attitude to childrearing. You should be looking for relationships that are fun to be in, with people you admire and respect (and fancy, of course), and you should be open to having your attitudes and assumptions challenged, broadened and maybe changed a bit by someone who sees things a little bit differently from you. One of you being a religious believer and the other not is absolutely not a problem; if anything you will both learn from having a partner who thinks differently. Either of you being bigotted or intolerant, however, would be a problem.

But - how can I put this delicately? - there's no law that says it's only the religious believer who can be bigotted or intolerant. You express the fear that he may be "judging you a little bit deep inside" but nothing you say in your posts suggests that he has done or said anything that points to this. So where is this fear coming from? It's coming from you - your own insecurity, your own preconceptions, and quite possible your own experience of other religious people who were judgmental.

You owe it to this boy - you owe it to all your romantic partners, now and in the future - not to prejudge who they are. Whether this relationship will work well or not depends on his qualities and yours, not on stereotypes that you impose on one another . You should no more assume that his is judgmental than he should assume that you are amoral. The point about intimacy is that you really should come to know one another well. Imposing stereotypes on one another gets in the way; that would be a real barrier to a successful relationship.

nozzferrahhtoo

xLisaBx wrote: »

My question is: do ye think this can work?

Can it? Yes. Many people do which shows 100% it works.

WILL it work in your case? We can not answer that for you as we do not know much at all you you, him, or your context.

Only you and you alone can sit down and list the things you want from a relationship. He can sit down and do the same.

You can then sit down and explore which things on each list preclude things on the other.

Having formed this new list of things from the original two.... you simply decide if they are unimportant and can be disregarded..... are important but some compromise can be found, explored and attempted...... or they are simply show stoppers.

Then you have your answer.

This particular vile piece of work on American TV however clearly has a different opinion.

Misty Moon

I think at your age it's probably not going to be too much of an issue - as someone else mentioned, it can become more of an issue if you're considering kids.

For what it's worth, for me, it'd be an absolute deal-breaker. If it's just a bit of fun then it doesn't really matter, you have your fun and both go your separate ways afterwards. But if I was looking at a serious relationship it'd be a different story.

It might not be a bad idea to spend some time thinking about what's important to you. Figure out why you think the situation should bother you ('cos it kind of seems like you're not sure whether it should bother you or not rather than that you are actually bothered about it). Above all, don't forget, when it comes down to it, to ignore what a bunch of strangers on the internet say and make your own mind up.

Dades

Future kids are only an issue if you have a wish for them to not be indoctrinated growing up. If you're relaxed about this then kids are a non-issue (except for them :pac:).

Zubeneschamali

I wouldn't worry about garden variety Irish catholicism, but some of that Lourdes/Medjugore/Fatima stuff is a bit mad, and believing that nonsense would be a bit of a worrier for me.

Cabaal

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about garden variety Irish catholicism, but some of that Lourdes/Medjugore/Fatima stuff is a bit mad, and believing that nonsense would be a bit of a worrier for me.

Funny you say that,
I know a person who is very religious, goes to mass 6 days a week etc

However, even she thinks the crowd that go to Medjugore are a bunch of loons :pac:

Dancing sun my arse...
:rolleyes:

rozeboosje

Will be married 17 years this year. My wife is a practicing Catholic who is very involved in the local parish and its activities. I'm a confirmed and outspoken godless heathen. We have an 11 year old daughter who is being raised a Catholic. Is this a problem? Nope. Why should it be?

The way I look at it is this: if she grows up able to think for herself she will be alright. If not, it really doesn't matter whether she's a Catholic who can't think for herself or an Atheist who can't think for herself.

jackofalltrades

rozeboosje wrote: »

Will be married 17 years this year. My wife is a practicing Catholic who is very involved in the local parish and its activities. I'm a confirmed and outspoken godless heathen. We have an 11 year old daughter who is being raised a Catholic. Is this a problem? Nope. Why should it be?

It becomes a problem if the people in the relationship disagree on things.

If you don't mind me asking, how would your wife have been if you said that you didn't want your child raised as a Catholic?

rozeboosje

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It becomes a problem if the people in the relationship disagree on things.

If you don't mind me asking, how would your wife have been if you said that you didn't want your child raised as a Catholic?

Oh, I'm sure that that would have been a problem alright. But that's where it was handy that my position isn't dogmatic. There is no "atheistic dogma" for me to indoctrinate my child with. My wife, however, is perfectly happy for her to question everything. EVERYTHING. Including the faith she is brought up in. Obviously she hopes that that doesn't lead to her abandoning said faith, but if it does, so be it.

Dades

There's nothing dogmatic about not wanting that insidious organisation having unfettered access to your child's mind, and you don't have to have a replacement dogma, either.

Just saying that such a stance could be a reaction, rather than an action.

rozeboosje

I shall allow that kneejerk statement to speak for itself.

Hotblack Desiato

Having been through it myself there is no damn way my kids would be put through catholic indoctrination. But my wife feels the same and she's a non-believer same as me.

Where there is a religious and a non-religious partner, almost invariably if there is a disagreement over something then the non-religious person will be the one expected to give in - if not by their partner, by the in-laws. E.g. religious wedding or not, baptism of children, funeral arrangements :eek:

Ireland is such a twisted society that NOT indoctrinating your children is seen as taking a choice away from them...

rozeboosje

It always amuses me to see people who pride themselves on being "free thinkers" regurgitate, sometimes verbatim, Dawkins and Hitchens sound bites. Is droll http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1208/were-non-conformists-irony-non-conformists-goth-demotivational-posters-1344202473.jpg

nozzferrahhtoo

rozeboosje wrote: »

Oh, I'm sure that that would have been a problem alright. But that's where it was handy that my position isn't dogmatic. There is no "atheistic dogma" for me to indoctrinate my child with.

rozeboosje wrote: »

I shall allow that kneejerk statement to speak for itself.

Not sure it is knee jerk at all.

The user you were responding to was not talking about indoctrinating your child with "atheist dogma". They were asking about refusing to allow your child to be indoctrinated with catholic dogma. Entirely different thing. And there are very good reasons why some parents, even if you are not one of them, would want to prevent this from happening.

rozeboosje wrote: »

It always amuses me to see people who pride themselves on being "free thinkers" regurgitate, sometimes verbatim, Dawkins and Hitchens sound bites.

I have nothing against that per se. If someone says something I agree with, but their command of English is such that they say it better than I do, then I am happy to adopt their way of expressing it into my discourse. You are in danger here of going down this route I am afraid.

rozeboosje

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure it is knee jerk at all.

The user you were responding to was not talking about indoctrinating your child with "atheist dogma". They were asking about refusing to allow your child to be indoctrinated with catholic dogma. Entirely different thing. And there are very good reasons why some parents, even if you are not one of them, would want to prevent this from happening.

It IS kneejerk because from my statement that I was happy to help my wife bring up my child as a Catholic he saw fit to start going on about "indoctrination with Catholic Dogma". This does not at all follow from what I said, so the poster was jumping to conclusions. My wife may be a Catholic but she's not a blind follower of dogma.

rozeboosje

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are in danger here of going down this route I am afraid.

Agreed. But there definitely ARE "annoying atheists" out there. I'm sure I can be one at times myself. But I try not to be, and I won't hesitate to call a spade a spade when I see one.

nozzferrahhtoo

And yet if such a parent brings a child up in their faith they are instilling them with that dogma. "not a blind follower" might dilute that slightly but diluted apple juice is still apple juice.

rozeboosje

[facedesk] ...

rozeboosje

Look up "slippery slope fallacy". It may be an educational experience.

rozeboosje

Like I said in my original post about this, while my wife is bringing our daughter up as a Catholic, she also encourages her to question and to make up her own mind about things. That is the compromise SHE had to make in this relationship.

A dogma is, as you can google for yourself "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" - a statement that cannot be questioned. Consequently, our daughter's upbringing can, by definition, not be "dogmatic".

No apple juice. At all. Which should have been obvious to anybody who had taken appropriate care to read what I originally posted. And therefore it is perfectly valid of me to refer to these responses as "kneejerking". That's exactly what they are.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yeah throw away lines like that usually only impress the person making them, and no one else. Much less doing so over two posts rather than one.

Again the point was that a user was talking about not wanting to have their child instilled with Catholic Dogma. Your response was that you do not want them to be instilled with Atheist Dogma, which is not quite replying to the user at all.

Another user then chimed in that there is good reason for not wanting your child to be instilled with Catholic Dogma. And you simply dismissed this with a throw away response much like you did with my post just now.

And the grounds of your dismissal was simply that you do not think your wife is too heavily invested in that dogma. Which is irrelevant for two reasons. 1) It is a single case which does not address the GENERAL points anyone is making here and 2) Just because her investment in it is not that heavy relatively speaking, it does not remove the point being made, just dilutes it.

So the pointless and empty throw away posturing inherent in your "Go look up this fallacy" comment is as irrelevant to what I am saying as it is just crass. That you think it only "might" be educational.... and that you have applied it where it does not apply.... simply shows us which one of us would actually benefit from looking it up.

rozeboosje

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your response was that you do not want them to be instilled with Atheist Dogma

My original comment was:

"There is no "atheistic dogma" for me to indoctrinate my child with."

Upon which the kneejerking commenced. I get a great sense of "if the shoe fits" here.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah throw away lines like that usually only impress the person making them, and no one else. Much less doing so over two posts rather than one.

Again the point was that a user was talking about not wanting to have their child instilled with Catholic Dogma. Your response was that you do not want them to be instilled with Atheist Dogma, which is not quite replying to the user at all . . .

Nozz, that is the exact opposite of what rozeboosje said.

rozeboosje wrote: »

. . . There is no "atheistic dogma" for me to indoctrinate my child with . . .

This was rozeboosje's first and only reference to "atheistic dogma"; to deny that it exists.

Zubeneschamali

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your response was that you do not want them to be instilled with Atheist Dogma, which is not quite replying to the user at all.

I understood what rozeboosje wrote the first time I read it. Perhaps you should read it again.

rozeboosje

Thank you for confirming that my communication skills are adequate [grin]

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nozz, that is the exact opposite of what rozeboosje said. This was rozeboosje's first and only reference to "atheistic dogma"; to deny that it exists.

Again: One person was talking about not wanting to instill catholic dogma in children. The other person responded about atheist dogma. My point was they were talking past each other.

rozeboosje wrote: »

"There is no "atheistic dogma" for me to indoctrinate my child with."

Upon which the kneejerking commenced. I get a great sense of "if the shoe fits" here.

Again that is my point. You not having an atheist dogma to indoctrinate with has little to do with people making the point that they do not want kids instilled with catholic dogma.

The user asked you how your wife would have responded if you had not wanted catholic dogma installed, at which point you went off on a tangent about "atheist dogma" which to my mind does not even exist.

The knee jerking was yours therefore, no one elses.

And the comment was not even a knee jerk one, but a true one. There is good reason to not want that dogma anywhere near your kids mind, irregardless of whether you have a replacement one of your own or not.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I understood what rozeboosje wrote the first time I read it. Perhaps you should read it again.

You are welcome to if you wish. However peoples failure to understand the issue I am taking with it does not equate to my failure to understand the original post.

rozeboosje

[smiles indulgently]

born2bwild

A religious partner would not really suit me. Particularly when it is as overt as going to Lourdes or going to mass. I would have little in common with a person like that