Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It can only work if you're willing to accept his religious beliefs and he is willing to accept your non-beliefs. If there is any difference of opinion on the matter, the relationship is dead in the water. It's best to have that conversation at the start of a relationship to figure out whether or not it'll pan out or it'll have been a huge waste of time.
I dated a woman who was bit of a zealot about Christianity. I accepted her for her beliefs and all the other stuff that came attached. She, on the other hand, faked it the entire time about accepting of my doubts in organized religion and everything else about it. A year and a half into it, she broke it off on the basis she cannot be with a person who doesn't believe in God.
Most religions are based on some form of "old testament" christianity
Eek, no. Hinduism's scriptures are the oldest extant writings. That is to say, they're older than the Tanakh. No, most religions did not develop from Canaanite mythology, because that is the basis for the Hebrew tradition. It was nothing more than an indigenous, tribal tradition with various patron deities, not unlike all others from this era.
Quote:
Even Islam, they believe in Old Testament God, and hell
Islam makes claim to the Hebrew tradition, yes. It is seen as part of the Abrahamic traditions.
Quote:
Judiasm is all Old Testament and hell
Buddhism is NOT a religion, so that doesnt count.
Hindusim has a hell type thing
There is no concept of eternal torment in Hebrew mythology. In Judaism there's sheol (the grave). In the NT there's tartarus (where souls go for punishment after being judged), hades (underworld), and gehenna (a dumpsite in Jerusalem). The first two are taken from Greek mythology and used solely in New Testament mythology. They are all used to refer to "hell." The eschatological themes that do exist in the Tanakh came after the Babylonian exile while Jews were exposed the Avestan tradition of Mazdaism.
The Arda Viraf Nameh contains a heaven and hell (the Christian version) and the latter Avestas contain a doctrine of hell, though different from Arda Viraf Nameh.
The doctrine of eternal torment didn't come out of thin air. It was long circling around in other traditions long before the writers or Church fathers took notice and adopted the themes. The doctrine as it is known today didn't exist in early Christianity. It developed into doctrine after the 3rd century, and it was exclusively taught in Rome.
Also, only certain schools in Hinduism believe in a literal form of eternal torment. Others take it as metaphorical. It, like the "concept" in Pauline Christianity, is not a universally held doctrine.
And, considering how many of such doctrines exist in some form or fashion across many cultures and mythologies it should tell eternal torment-believing Christians how completely unoriginal their doctrine. It has existed in many traditions, predating Abrahamic mythology, for a very long time. There is nothing original or unique about this concept or any tenet based on mythos and folklore. Someone threatening me with the hell is about as silly as someone threatening me with the Greek underworld. Folklore doesn't frighten me, but nice try.
Last edited by Metaphysique; 06-19-2015 at 10:17 AM..
Someone threatening me with the hell is about as silly as someone threatening me with the Greek underworld. Folklore doesn't frighten me, but nice try.
I don't believe in any of these fairy tales either... that's all religion is. Elaborate fairy tales designed to control people with weak minds. Later on used as a fundraising mechanism
This depends heavily on the perspective of both parties involved. It's easier for a religious person to couple-up with an atheist who views all religions as equally valid, as opposed to one who is diametrically opposed to all religions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belovenow
To the OP - not even reading your entire post (just the beginning), as many others have stated NO, I don't believe things will work out... at least not unless one of you switches over to the other person's belief system. The two systems named in the original post are diametrically opposed; it is really that simple. How can one respect the beliefs of the other when they don't acknowledge the other is valid? I wouldn't waste time pursuing this relationship and I'm very open-minded.
This depends heavily on the perspective of both parties involved. It's easier for a religious person to couple-up with an atheist who views all religions as equally valid, as opposed to one who is diametrically opposed to all religions.
First:
I don't know of ANY atheists who view all (or any) religions as valid, let alone equally valid.
You might be thinking of agnostics, who don't believe, but at the same time do not automatically disbelieve the existence of religion.
Atheists might, and probably should, respect people's right to believe in whatever they want, but to say an atheist views a specific religion as valid is just not accurate.
Second:
By and large, I have found atheists and agnostics to be FAR more accepting of people with opposing viewpoints than Christians / religious people. To a Christian, simply refusing to acknowledge the existence of god rules any sort of views you have or opinions to be invalid. Which is ridiculous.
I respectfully disagree because I am an atheist who does view all religions as equally valid, as in not one of them are more truthful than the rest because all of them lack objective evidence to prove that validity. In other words, I don't believe any religion is inherently true, nor can they all be true, but a hindu's belief in their gods (for example) is every bit as valid as a christian's belief in their god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanHalen5150
First:
I don't know of ANY atheists who view all (or any) religions as valid, let alone equally valid.
You might be thinking of agnostics, who don't believe, but at the same time do not automatically disbelieve the existence of religion.
Atheists might, and probably should, respect people's right to believe in whatever they want, but to say an atheist views a specific religion as valid is just not accurate.
Second:
By and large, I have found atheists and agnostics to be FAR more accepting of people with opposing viewpoints than Christians / religious people. To a Christian, simply refusing to acknowledge the existence of god rules any sort of views you have or opinions to be invalid. Which is ridiculous.
I respectfully disagree because I am an atheist who does view all religions as equally valid, as in not one of them are more truthful than the rest because all of them lack objective evidence to prove that validity. In other words, I don't believe any religion is inherently true, nor can they all be true, but a hindu's belief in their gods (for example) is every bit as valid as a christian's belief in their god.
See, I view all religions as equally INvalid, although I respect everyone's right to believe in whatever fairy tale they want to...
I find your thought process strange. An atheist is one who does not believe in a god, creator or higher power. So how can you find any religions valid? Let alone all of them?
I respectfully disagree because I am an atheist who does view all religions as equally valid, as in not one of them are more truthful than the rest because all of them lack objective evidence to prove that validity. In other words, I don't believe any religion is inherently true, nor can they all be true, but a hindu's belief in their gods (for example) is every bit as valid as a christian's belief in their god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanHalen5150
See, I view all religions as equally INvalid, although I respect everyone's right to believe in whatever fairy tale they want to...
I find your thought process strange. An atheist is one who does not believe in a god, creator or higher power. So how can you find any religions valid? Let alone all of them?
It sounds like you both believe the same thing, but only one of you is using the correct terminology: INvalid.
I don't think it's all that strange of a perspective: they're invalid *to me*, but equally valid to those who believe in them. I believe that man created god(s), so it stands to reason that their beliefs are valid in their minds, even if they aren't actually truthful. Maybe I'm just trying to hard to be kind (read: mealy-mouthed) about how I say it? I've gotten my fair share of venom from religious people, and try not to be as offensive myself, kwim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanHalen5150
See, I view all religions as equally INvalid, although I respect everyone's right to believe in whatever fairy tale they want to...
I find your thought process strange. An atheist is one who does not believe in a god, creator or higher power. So how can you find any religions valid? Let alone all of them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can it work?
I've gotten my fair share of venom from religious people, and try not to be as offensive myself, kwim?
