What are your thoughts on interfaith relationships?

Considering that I live in an area highly concentrated with Christians, I've considered the prospect of interfaith relationships. Interfaith relationships are relationships between two people of different faiths. Technically, I don't belong to a faith in the sense that faith is traditionally defined in a religioius sense. Still, the concept would operate just the same if I wanted to go out with someone that was religious.

I would still prefer to date a naturalist, but the chances that I will find one that I like are slim, especially given their pro-choice/anti-fetus bent. I did some light reading on interfaith marriages and found that they have a host of problems, which I'm sure you can imagine. However, I couldn't find any substantial data that these differences in beliefs ever matter when it comes to love. I'm sure that when two people love each other, religion wouldn't matter, but I'm ignoring the fact that religion isn't like a disagreement over a hobby, such as shopping. Whereas shopping for most people does not deal with the final destination of our souls, religion does.

A person who wants God to be the crux of the relationship simply isn't compatible with an atheist. An atheist who thinks religion is absolutely evil probably isn't suited for a religious person. However, I do think that if two people are willing to compromise or if they make their religion or hatred of religion secondary to their relationship, then it can work. However, if I were religious, I can't imagine ever considering the idea of dating someone of a different religion than me.

As such, I think I should be as selective in my mating choices as a nonreligious naturalist. The simple fact is though that I am a very unusual person and it would be very rare to find someone like me. At the same time, I don't think I can deal with someone compromising their religion. In my mind, that makes them weak. I guess I'll have to see how it plays out. I'll try not worrying about it until then. My final opinion is that I'm generally against interfaith marriage. It's best if a couple can be of the same faith.

What's your opinion?

The extent to which interfaith marriages can work is generally inversely proportional to the extent to which either member of the relationship believes that everyone who disagrees is going to burn for all eternity in hell. :P

I have nothing to say against interfaith marriages, provided both people are happy.

I dont think much of them.

Personally I would like it if I was a partner of someone who is a -hypocrite moderate- Christian and show me reasons (not reasons as in arguments) to change my desposition towards it. I am fully aware of course that that would be a stupid reason to return to religion but I dont care.

Also, personally, I am happy when I see interfaith/interracial/inter-etc marriages/relationships work. Theres nothing more remarkable than seeing two people put aside their -trivial for an intimate relationship imo- differences and be happy together.

[spoiler] Btw I am just kidding about the "hypocrite moderate" part. I am just jabbing at gambler. :P [/spoiler]

This really is something that I think about all the time because I will have to encounter it almost certainly. I do plan to try to go to UK for my final studies but I really find it too big a compromise to marry someone who doesnt speak my native language so hoping to hook up with some non-religious women in england is not really something I am sure about.

The problem with me is that I cant reveal that I am an atheist or I may never get married.:lol:

I can compromise for love but there are few things which is simply a no-no. She shouldnt wear the burka, shouldnt be constantly asking me to offer prayers and all. Now comes the huge problem, I dont want my children to have any religion, I dont want them to be offering prayers being a 10 year old and all. This is something which no religious person would accept I think...

Btw I am just kidding about the "hypocrite moderate" part. I am just jabbing at gambler. :P

Teenaged

The extent to which interfaith marriages can work is generally inversely proportional to the extent to which either member of the relationship believes that everyone who disagrees is going to burn for all eternity in hell. :P

I have nothing to say against interfaith marriages, provided both people are happy.

GabuEx

*head explodes*

I'll just say I agree with whatever you said.

The extent to which interfaith marriages can work is generally inversely proportional to the extent to which either member of the relationship believes that everyone who disagrees is going to burn for all eternity in hell. :P

GabuEx

some religions specifically condemn such things *cough2Corinthians6:14splutter*.domatron23

Not to derail the thread, but 2 Corinthians 6:14 is one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible, due in large part to the use of the now-basically-antiquated word "yoke" in many Bibles.  In its literal sense, a yoke is a device to join together two animals; in its figurative sense, a yoke is an agent of oppression, or of forced servitude.  2 Corinthians 6:14 is basically instructing believers to follow Christ and Christ alone, and not to allow themselves to be bound by the stringent rules that other faiths would force them into.

...Which is kind of ironic considering how rule-based Christianity has evolved to be, but I digress.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]some religions specifically condemn such things *cough2Corinthians6:14splutter*.GabuEx

Not to derail the thread, but 2 Corinthians 6:14 is one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible, due in large part to the use of the now-basically-antiquated word "yoke" in many Bibles.  In its literal sense, a yoke is a device to join together two animals; in its figurative sense, a yoke is an agent of oppression, or of forced servitude.  2 Corinthians 6:14 is basically instructing believers to follow Christ and Christ alone, and not to allow themselves to be bound by the stringent rules that other faiths would force them into.

...Which is kind of ironic considering how rule-based Christianity has evolved to be, but I digress.

Well yes I agree. But the instruction that you should not be bound by the dogma of another religion involves not being yoked with, not being in fellowship with and not being in harmony with unbelievers. That seems to specifically include not getting into a relationship with or marrying a non-Christian.

In short your interpretation of what is meant by "yoke" doesn't alter the fact that the verse condemns interfaith relationships.

Interfaith relationships are sadly restricted due to religious customs. Why should religious differences get in the way of a relationship?ghoklebutter

Hypocrite moderate am confirmed?

:P 

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Interfaith relationships are sadly restricted due to religious customs. Why should religious differences get in the way of a relationship?Gambler_3

Hypocrite moderate am confirmed?

:P 

I do have conflicting beliefs, but I wouldn't say I'm a hypocrite moderate.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Interfaith relationships are sadly restricted due to religious customs. Why should religious differences get in the way of a relationship?ghoklebutter

Hypocrite moderate am confirmed?

:P 

I do have conflicting beliefs, but I wouldn't say I'm a hypocrite moderate.

The way I see it, any ban on interfaith relationships that is a few thousand years old, is fair game for reinterpretation. When Paul wrote that particular verse for example, was during a time when Christianity was not a legally permitted religion in the Roman Empire, as they refused to acknowledge the divine nature of the emperor. The Jews got away with it, thanks to an understanding emperor some time back, but by breaking off from Judaism the newly founded sect was breaking the law when they would not sacrifice to the emperor, and eventually persecution happened. In that environment, a Christian would take a considerably risk marrying an "unbeliever", as that person might not only turn their spouse over to the authorities when pressured, he or she could potentially give up the location, size, and all the names of a whole congregation. So in other words, when you marry outside the group, you will endanger the lives and existence of the group -- don't do that. If that was the main reason to stop interfaith relationships, I'd say that in modern US, there is no need for that rule. Apply it where it is needed, by all means, but not in countries where there is no persecution.ChiliDragon

I rest my case about the modern belief in religion...

And the twisting things to suit yourself never ends....

I rest my case about the modern belief in religion...

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

And the twisting things to suit yourself never ends....

I rest my case about the modern belief in religion...

ChiliDragon

If you didnt agree with inter-faith marriages then you would never come to that interpretation. You dont make your own rules to satisfy yourself in religion - just no!

As soon as you dont consider the bible god's infallible word then there remains little reason in giving as much importance to the bible as you and all the symbolic interpretors give. It is centuries old outdated illogical mateiral but yet it matters alot!

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

And the twisting things to suit yourself never ends....

I rest my case about the modern belief in religion...

ChiliDragon

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]The way I see it, any ban on interfaith relationships that is a few thousand years old, is fair game for reinterpretation. When Paul wrote that particular verse for example, was during a time when Christianity was not a legally permitted religion in the Roman Empire, as they refused to acknowledge the divine nature of the emperor. The Jews got away with it, thanks to an understanding emperor some time back, but by breaking off from Judaism the newly founded sect was breaking the law when they would not sacrifice to the emperor, and eventually persecution happened. In that environment, a Christian would take a considerably risk marrying an "unbeliever", as that person might not only turn their spouse over to the authorities when pressured, he or she could potentially give up the location, size, and all the names of a whole congregation. So in other words, when you marry outside the group, you will endanger the lives and existence of the group -- don't do that. If that was the main reason to stop interfaith relationships, I'd say that in modern US, there is no need for that rule. Apply it where it is needed, by all means, but not in countries where there is no persecution.Gambler_3

I rest my case about the modern belief in religion...

Imo, the reason you feel like labeling it as such is the intention you assume that exists behind an allegorical interpretation: seeking conveniency and an easy life while still holding on to the religion or something akin to that. Am I right?

If I am right, then you must be aware that not only can you not prove that that is the case for most believers but you also cannot condemn non-literal interpretations based on the intentions of some people when they follow that road.

I also despise the reasoning that a literal interpretation is what holds the essence of scripture. If to that you will answer that it cant be proven that they are allegories... well, then it also cant be proven that they are supposed to be literal.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Interfaith relationships are sadly restricted due to religious customs. Why should religious differences get in the way of a relationship?Gambler_3

Hypocrite moderate am confirmed?

:P 

I do have conflicting beliefs, but I wouldn't say I'm a hypocrite moderate.

The latter. 

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]The way I see it, any ban on interfaith relationships that is a few thousand years old, is fair game for reinterpretation. When Paul wrote that particular verse for example, was during a time when Christianity was not a legally permitted religion in the Roman Empire, as they refused to acknowledge the divine nature of the emperor. The Jews got away with it, thanks to an understanding emperor some time back, but by breaking off from Judaism the newly founded sect was breaking the law when they would not sacrifice to the emperor, and eventually persecution happened. In that environment, a Christian would take a considerably risk marrying an "unbeliever", as that person might not only turn their spouse over to the authorities when pressured, he or she could potentially give up the location, size, and all the names of a whole congregation. So in other words, when you marry outside the group, you will endanger the lives and existence of the group -- don't do that. If that was the main reason to stop interfaith relationships, I'd say that in modern US, there is no need for that rule. Apply it where it is needed, by all means, but not in countries where there is no persecution.Teenaged

I rest my case about the modern belief in religion...

Imo, the reason you feel like labeling it as such is the intention you assume that exists behind an allegorical interpretation: seeking conveniency and an easy life while still holding on to the religion or something akin to that. Am I right?

If I am right, then you must be aware that not only can you not prove that that is the case for most believers but you also cannot condemn non-literal interpretations based on the intentions of some people when they follow that road.

I also despise the reasoning that a literal interpretation is what holds the essence of scripture. If to that you will answer that it cant be proven that they are allegories... well, then it also cant be proven that they are supposed to be literal.

Can you show me some modern interpretations that arent convenient? Why is it that most of these interpretations end up "relaxing" some stuff?

How come all the people who interpret symbolically accept so easily that a god literally exists? A very good case can be made for god itself being a parable but I wonder why none of the symbolic interpretors believe that? Oh ya it creates a huge problem and hopelessness....

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Interfaith relationships are sadly restricted due to religious customs. Why should religious differences get in the way of a relationship?ghoklebutter

Hypocrite moderate am confirmed?

:P 

I do have conflicting beliefs, but I wouldn't say I'm a hypocrite moderate.

The latter. 

Because people have a pre-concieved notion like you had one of "inter-faith marriages are not wrong so lets try to interpret the bible in a way that it gets justified".Gambler_3

I think it is kind of naive, from both perspectives (both in favour of religion and against it) to think that religious texts carry significant value when interpreted literally. They don't... it has been a common method of delivering messages to people for the longest of time, even well before religion even existed. People often remember stories more than they remember facts and rules.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Because people have a pre-concieved notion like you had one of "inter-faith marriages are not wrong so lets try to interpret the bible in a way that it gets justified".ChiliDragon

However a parable has to be rather obvious especially in a religious text where you have to "believe", I have never read a book where I would spend hours trying to figure if this or that is a parable, even in poetry it's rather obvious what's parable and what's not. The problem with a religious book is that you dont really "know" much of the stuff being talked about.

When you say that X and Y rule is not really a "rule" but a parable for something you "claim" to know the intentions of god, that's the problem. You are using your own judgement to try to find out the intentions of an infinitely superior god?

I would only accept subjective interpretations without a pre-concieved agenda which I never really see, the interpretation always seems to have a "purpose"...I am not outright against non-literal interpretation, it all depends on the particular portions in question. Your interpretation on this marriage matter is biased and baseless in my opinion, I am also strongly against the symbolic interpretation of genesis creation...

I would only accept subjective interpretations without a pre-concieved agenda which I never really see, the interpretation always seems to have a "purpose"...I am not outright against non-literal interpretation, it all depends on the particular portions in question. Your interpretation on this marriage matter is biased and baseless in my opinionGambler_3

Faced with a choice between pretending such situations do not exist, or to reinterpret and expand the guidelines from their holy texts, the religion that takes the second path is far more likely to survive and grow... while staying alive, dynamic, not to mention relevant.ChiliDragon

As long as you accept that god actually exists then it's not really difficult to justify pretty much any of the moral standards in the bible...I mean why be an apologetic for the noah's flood? God can do whatever he wants to and he just decided to punish those who disobeyed him, as long as you really believe in god, I dont see the huge problem with it, accept god the way it is or just dont if you dont want to...

You cant "fiddle" with divine truth with your reinterpretations, either something is divine truth or it is nothing divine at all...

And since when was a religion about surviving and growing? All that matters is the truth and the "preservance" of that truth.

Christianity is the most altered from it's original teachings out of all the abarahimic religions and no wonder the symbolic interpretation is more prevalent in it then the others...

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]I would only accept subjective interpretations without a pre-concieved agenda which I never really see, the interpretation always seems to have a "purpose"...I am not outright against non-literal interpretation, it all depends on the particular portions in question. Your interpretation on this marriage matter is biased and baseless in my opinionChiliDragon

I dont know what's more naive, to submit yourself absolutely to an omniscient being or to pretend to have superior reasoning to god/ to think that god is one lazy ass who has left it upon people to interpret his outdated words in whatever way they feel but it still is absolutely necessary to "believe" in him...Gambler_3

When did I say that my opinion is "right"?Gambler_3

"Because people have a pre-concieved notion like you had one of "inter-faith marriages are not wrong so lets try to interpret the bible in a way that it gets justified".Gambler_3

So your reasoning is superior to that of a perfect omniscient god? How can you accept him as your god then?Gambler_3

That's just my personal opinion.

Yes you are right. I dont have to prove it, I believe that intentions are judged by actions cuz that is really the only way to go about it.

Can you show me some modern interpretations that arent convenient? Why is it that most of these interpretations end up "relaxing" some stuff?

How come all the people who interpret symbolically accept so easily that a god literally exists? A very good case can be made for god itself being a parable but I wonder why none of the symbolic interpretors believe that? Oh ya it creates a huge problem and hopelessness....

Gambler_3

Thats like a theist condemning atheism as an arrogant stance just because some atheists come off as arrogant jerks.

Actions can be interpretable. That fact doesnt mean that you have misjudged the intentions of all the theists around you but that things are not always the way they appear to be/not always in tune with our predispositions and preconceived notions and so on. In effect I am telling you to leave some room for doubt about your absolute conclusion.

A premise has to be agreed upon before I continue: that the Bible and any scripture, whether it is influenced by a deity or not, is also influenced by the era during which it was written. Correct? I think that makes perfect sense and is not far-fetched at all.

Modern interpretations go about and influence our perception of/take on scripture based on the modern era. That is hardly hypocritical if we accept the (strong possibility of the) above premise. What is already based on circumstancial socio-political conditions doesnt ought to not change when these conditions do change dramatically.

I can see your problem here and thats my take on it (I will make assumptions along the way so correct me if you think I misjudged something): As an atheist you have come across strong believers who emphasise on how their religion is true beyond doubt, how they are very confident about their faith and whatnot. As a result you have placed very high standards on your acceptance of religion as a non-condemnable way of life. As a reaction to that.

In order for you to respect a religion you expect its scripture to not be interpreted, in order to avoid all arbitrarity, all personal take and all diversity within the same religion.

Your standards are as unrealistic and rigid as the attitude of the believers you might have come across (some of them here on GS I bet). While if you hadnt faced something like that perhaps your positions would be"softer".

While of course allegorical interpretations may give off serious mistakes, it is still a fallacy to assume that a literal interpretation does justice to scripture. Somehow, face value and literal interpretation has been connected to truthfulness and accuracy. A connection which I fail to find any reasoning for. While of course I would relate to you if you criticised the flaws and uncertainty of an allegorical interpretation, it doesnt follow to assume that a literal interpretation is the only non-condemnable option just because its the only alternative or one which falsely is connected to truthfulness. An evangelist has even connected allegory to lying. Imo, you fall into the same "trap" due to those high standards you have placed.

As for if god is a parable himself, I dont exclude that possibility. But I dont see how a text is either entirely allegorical or either entirely literal. Just because Adam and Eve may be allegorical symbols (is that an oxymoron?) doesnt mean God is as well (while of course he/she/it might be).

About the issue of allegory vs literal interpretation here is a link to an oooold thread where I had posted my opinion about it. Sorry I am bored to retype stuff and if I did I would copy-paste. :P

I find that many danish christian girls are extremely sweet and generally very moderate. I think the interfaith relationships can work if both parts are moderate or not too fundamental. Steingrimur

I also find Christian women to be very caring and honest. I like Christian women. I wouldn't mind dating one, but the majority I know do not prefer a naturalist and some even will refuse to date one.

I guess interfaith relationships can work, let's remember that in any relationship there is always differences, of course religion is a pretty sensitive one, but i think if both wants to be together they could obviate that part or tolerate each other belief

I only have an atheist friend and he's dating a protestant girl, they had some problems about it but now they tolerate each other belief and they are good, so i do think interfaith relationships can work

A premise has to be agreed upon before I continue: that the Bible and any scripture, whether it is influenced by a deity or not, is also influenced by the era during which it was written. Correct? I think that makes perfect sense and is not far-fetched at all.Teenaged

I can see your problem here and thats my take on it (I will make assumptions along the way so correct me if you think I misjudged something): As an atheist you have come across strong believers who emphasise on how their religion is true beyond doubt, how they are very confident about their faith and whatnot. As a result you have placed very high standards on your acceptance of religion as a non-condemnable way of life. As a reaction to that.

In order for you to respect a religion you expect its scripture to not be interpreted, in order to avoid all arbitrarity, all personal take and all diversity within the same religion.

Your standards are as unrealistic and rigid as the attitude of the believers you might have come across (some of them here on GS I bet). While if you hadnt faced something like that perhaps your positions would be"softer".Teenaged

I am really talking about the people who will very strongly oppose an anti-religious thing and yet their actions dont really show a very strong level of belief. Like how some people "know" they are "right" in religious discussions, how so many people outright reject same-sex marriage as the worst thing ever, how people despise the idea of abortion purely because their religion tells them that it's wrong.

If I say bad things about muhammad even to my close friends than there is a possibility of violent reaction, those friends do all sorts of things that the quran prohibits. What gives here? Why such a strong reaction when they have a not so strong belief themselves? Trying to win favours from god or just simply having some fun or perhaps winning a good image among the society for having stood up for religion? I dont know.:?

I am really talking about the people who will very strongly oppose an anti-religious thing and yet their actions dont really show a very strong level of belief. Like how some people "know" they are "right" in religious discussions, how so many people outright reject same-sex marriage as the worst thing ever, how people despise the idea of abortion purely because their religion tells them that it's wrong.

If I say bad things about muhammad even to my close friends than there is a possibility of violent reaction, those friends do all sorts of things that the quran prohibits. What gives here? Why such a strong reaction when they have a not so strong belief themselves? Trying to win favours from god or just simply having some fun or perhaps winning a good image among the society for having stood up for religion? I dont know.:?

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

I am really talking about the people who will very strongly oppose an anti-religious thing and yet their actions dont really show a very strong level of belief. Like how some people "know" they are "right" in religious discussions, how so many people outright reject same-sex marriage as the worst thing ever, how people despise the idea of abortion purely because their religion tells them that it's wrong.

If I say bad things about muhammad even to my close friends than there is a possibility of violent reaction, those friends do all sorts of things that the quran prohibits. What gives here? Why such a strong reaction when they have a not so strong belief themselves? Trying to win favours from god or just simply having some fun or perhaps winning a good image among the society for having stood up for religion? I dont know.:?

ChiliDragon

If it is influenced by an omniscient diety then it shouldnt really have much influence from the era it was wirtten in so I cant really agree with that.

Gambler_3

I myself had been a literal and absolutist when I was a believer myself. I have never been able to see how I could twist religion to suit my needs and yet actually believe in it.

I am really talking about the people who will very strongly oppose an anti-religious thing and yet their actions dont really show a very strong level of belief. Like how some people "know" they are "right" in religious discussions, how so many people outright reject same-sex marriage as the worst thing ever, how people despise the idea of abortion purely because their religion tells them that it's wrong.

If I say bad things about muhammad even to my close friends than there is a possibility of violent reaction, those friends do all sorts of things that the quran prohibits. What gives here? Why such a strong reaction when they have a not so strong belief themselves? Trying to win favours from god or just simply having some fun or perhaps winning a good image among the society for having stood up for religion? I dont know.:?

Gambler_3

So, I find the equation scripture=religion to be false.

Based on that I dont see how an allegorical interpretation of scripture twists the religion it is based on. Perhaps religions are starting to redefine themselves in the sense of what they are now based on. And who are we to say absolutely what a religion MUST be based on and to what degree?

And exactly like you said in your first paragraph your criticism is about the people who are behaving hypocritically. Being a hypocrite (judging others strongly by your religious convictions but at the same time not following those convictions yourself) isnt necessarily part of moderate faith. Therefore the term "twisting" doesnt suit it by definition.