• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Interfaith Marriage and Children

UniqueMixture

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
estj
Enneagram
378
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
My point is that without religion (or at least a God for deists) moral relativism is the only logical stance. You might be able to develop and build a more complex belief system like you just provided, but I don't see how this means anything if at the bottom of it every good is totally subjective. Even words like "maximize" and "potential" would be subjective outside of a created order. Universal complexity wouldn't have a higher value than that which is simple it's just different. It just is.

Perhaps morality is an abstraction of feeling, telling us how we must or rather did relate to others in the past. Perhaps feelings correlate with physical processes upon which an objective morality can be built.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
I see no way to navigate this space with enough respect toward both of the different religions, unless you're just culturally religious. But I sincerely hope that you figure it out!
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Can you say that anything is objectively bad or good?
No, but neither can you. You presume that you can because you have accepted the contents of an old collection of texts as truth. But would you say that someone who has accepted the contents of the 'Liber AL vel Legis' as truth can?

To say that anything is good or bad, we need a standard or a goal. Is a hammer good? Not in itself, but for hammering. Is prostitution good? Not in itself, but for making easy money.
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Imo, parents should let their children think for themselves. They should not force or induce their children to go to churches or pray for Allah or God or Thor or Zeus unless he/she actually decided to believe the given deity does exist.
Wait until he/she gets old enough and tell him/her:
''I believe in God, your father believes in Allah, some people don't believe in any of those. Since I can't prove you that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, and neither can your dad, you should try to find your own truth. If you wanna hear more about my views, I'm willing to share them with you in an informative tone.''
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Imo, parents should let their children think for themselves. They should not force or induce their children to go to churches or pray for Allah or God or Thor or Zeus unless he/she actually decided to believe the given deity does exist.
Wait until he/she gets old enough and tell him/her:
''I believe in God, your father believes in Allah, some people don't believe in any of those. Since I can't prove you that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, and neither can your dad, you should try to find your own truth. If you wanna hear more about my views, I'm willing to share them with you in an informative tone.''

And then the result of an anti-authoritarian education is your child dressing as Darth Vader and going to Star Trek conventions... ok thats prolly better than him dressing with a bomb belt. :D

The point is, no authority is no solution as well. Most people wouldnt know what to do with themselves without an authority or a goal. Thats why religion is so popular.
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
Perhaps morality is an abstraction of feeling, telling us how we must or rather did relate to others in the past. Perhaps feelings correlate with physical processes upon which an objective morality can be built.

Perhaps that's true.
If you were a Judge what would you think about sentencing a murderer to death or life in prison based on what you believed were your and society's feelings?

What if you were judged a heretic by a Christian theocracy and put to death?
Would you think it's unfair and unjust or would think it was unfortunate society had different feelings from you?

No, but neither can you.

By what authority do you tell me what I can and cannot do?
Why would you tell a madman who wants to nuke the world "whatever you feel like." Yet, you presume to tell me what I can and cannot believe. Even if I'm being illogical why the hell does it matter in a world where it's ok to blow up the world?


You presume that you can because you have accepted the contents of an old collection of texts as truth. But would you say that someone who has accepted the contents of the 'Liber AL vel Legis' as truth can?

Sure they can say their truth is the objective truth. We wouldn't agree on what that truth was, but at least when we argue it would be over a truth we both agree actually matters outside of ourselves. Two moral relativists arguing is like playing soccer without goals. In the end both take their ball home and neither is a winner by any objective standard.

To say that anything is good or bad, we need a standard or a goal. Is a hammer good? Not in itself, but for hammering. Is prostitution good? Not in itself, but for making easy money.

Utility and purpose serve a role in determining what is good, but I believe there is a standard for what is good outside of ourselves and that some things have inherent value.

A hammer may seem good to an individual for smashing in a human skull, but it is bad because it violates a higher law and ignores the inherent value in humans.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Sure they can say their truth is the objective truth. We wouldn't agree on what that truth was, but at least when we argue it would be over a truth we both agree actually matters outside of ourselves. Two moral relativists arguing is like playing soccer without goals. In the end both take their ball home and neither is a winner by any objective standard.

That particular example confuses me, as the outcome is still the same if you've got two moral relativists arguing vs two people with concrete but different valuesets. In the first game, no one scores and both go home without anyone having won; in the second game, both sides claim that they've scored goals and are the victor, and by objective standards STILL both go home with their balls and a lack of objective acknowledgement of victory.

There's no real difference to the outside observer, because there is no observable and agreed-up "final standard" by which to evaluate who won the game. Just because the captain of each football team declares for himself what his particular goal is / should be doesn't change anything in regards to the external observer's view; you can only play a game if both people agree on what constitutes victory or if an authority outside the game imposes the requirements for victory.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
By what authority do you tell me what I can and cannot do?
Why would you tell a madman who wants to nuke the world "whatever you feel like." Yet, you presume to tell me what I can and cannot believe. Even if I'm being illogical why the hell does it matter in a world where it's ok to blow up the world?
You cannot not because it is not allowed, but because it is impossible.

Sure they can say their truth is the objective truth. We wouldn't agree on what that truth was, but at least when we argue it would be over a truth we both agree actually matters outside of ourselves. Two moral relativists arguing is like playing soccer without goals. In the end both take their ball home and neither is a winner by any objective standard.
Two moral relativists do not argue about what is objectively good. They argue about ends, means and consequences.

However, the point was that if you talk about the good in your book and the Crowleyist talks about the good in his book, you are both merely talking about the contents of books.

Utility and purpose serve a role in determining what is good, but I believe there is a standard for what is good outside of ourselves and that some things have inherent value.

A hammer may seem good to an individual for smashing in a human skull, but it is bad because it violates a higher law and ignores the inherent value in humans.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatsoever to support your belief that there is a higher law.
 

UniqueMixture

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
estj
Enneagram
378
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
[MENTION=5789]Beefeater[/MENTION], I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am advocating a set of universal principles on which morality should be based. So while all feelings have equal "weight" on an individual level the values which benefit the most individuals on a global (or larger) scale are more important in my opinion. I recognize this may piss you off, but in my opinion humanity > Christians alone.

In the murder scenario, I would sentence the person to life imprisonment for several reasons. 1) It is cheaper than litigating for the death penalty. 2) The death penalty is irreversible and does not allow for the possibility of restitution 3) Often people are falsely convicted and if they are dead, then they cannot be freed so some semblance of justice can occur.

In the case of the Christian theocracy, I imagine I would disagree with much of what would be decided there because I believe humanity should focus on integration to face global and universal challenges such as colonizing other worlds or curing disease.

However, if you saw my post on creating "prosocial" communities I would be ok with a community dedicated to christianity however, I think it may turn out very different than you I'magine if all of the principles of pro-sociality were followed.

No, but neither can you. You presume that you can because you have accepted the contents of an old collection of texts as truth. But would you say that someone who has accepted the contents of the 'Liber AL vel Legis' as truth can?

To say that anything is good or bad, we need a standard or a goal. Is a hammer good? Not in itself, but for hammering. Is prostitution good? Not in itself, but for making easy money.

Wouldn't you say this way of thinking promotes processes that are destructive for individuals and communities? Is it a way of justifying cruelty, where perhaps intervention is more appropriate, even at the risk of violating individual autonomy?
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
That particular example confuses me, as the outcome is still the same if you've got two moral relativists arguing vs two people with concrete but different valuesets. In the first game, no one scores and both go home without anyone having won; in the second game, both sides claim that they've scored goals and are the victor, and by objective standards STILL both go home with their balls and a lack of objective acknowledgement of victory.

There's no real difference to the outside observer, because there is no observable and agreed-up "final standard" by which to evaluate who won the game. Just because the captain of each football team declares for himself what his particular goal is / should be doesn't change anything in regards to the external observer's view; you can only play a game if both people agree on what constitutes victory or if an authority outside the game imposes the requirements for victory.

I think we can use logic and reasoning to approach what is objectively true. I think we can find areas of agreement in what is reasonable and logical and work from there. Outsiders who agree on what is reasonable and logical can perceive who's ideas are more coherent and thus more likely to be objectively true.

You cannot not because it is not allowed, but because it is impossible.

Even if you're right given your worldview isn't such a statement purely pedantic?


Two moral relativists do not argue about what is objectively good. They argue about ends, means and consequences.

How do they compare ends and consequences?


However, the point was that if you talk about the good in your book and the Crowleyist talks about the good in his book, you are both merely talking about the contents of books.

If I'm talking about Pauly Shore films and you're talking about Buster Keaton films are we both just talking about films?


Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatsoever to support your belief that there is a higher law.

Do you believe in laws of logic?
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
I was raised orthodox christian, but when i reached highschool my mom's like its now time for you to decide what you believe and I don't believe in god so i stopped going to church. and sometimes i'd go with her but wouldn't take communion because my taking communion you're basically saying you agree with church doctrine, which I do not.
 

Betty Blue

Let me count the ways
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
5,063
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7W6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
My boyfriend (muslim) and I (christian) were talking about this subject today.

I was just interested to see if anyone had any comments/suggestions about this topic and how to overcome the complications that could arise.

Are any of you from interfaith households?

If married to someone from another faith, do you each practice your own faiths? Have you talked about what you will do with your children? How is it working out?

If you grew up in an interfaith household, what did your parents do? Do you think they should have used a different method?

Just trying to gain some information :D


Umm, not in this corner sorry, both parents agnostic and i have followed in their footsteps.

In my experience the person most ardently following their religion would try to sway the other, often times with an Islamic male and Christian female the woman will convert. Ofc not always the case, depends on the individuals.
I would recommend though, befor bringing children into the equation, that you discuss and make decisions on how you will bring up your child/children in regards to religious beliefs.
 
F

figsfiggyfigs

Guest
If it is an issue of serious consideration, I suggest figuring out what both of you want until you both absolutely agree on every little detail you can think of. Find comfort in this, as it will give you an idea of what possible belief-related conflicts can occur. You'll be a little more prepared for issues that might crop up later on, especially those involving your future kids. The more you figure out now, the better it is for you and your family/relationship long term.
It is more vital to discuss it if one party is close to their faith. Have a discussion on what you both individually want and how you can make it fit and smoothly operate together. This practically applies to every part of a relationship.

Maybe allowing them to dabble in what is important to the both of you is a solution.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think we can use logic and reasoning to approach what is objectively true. I think we can find areas of agreement in what is reasonable and logical and work from there. Outsiders who agree on what is reasonable and logical can perceive who's ideas are more coherent and thus more likely to be objectively true.

I agree that logic can be used as a tool, and consistency of thought can be used as a guide... but people arrive at different conclusions using the same logic if their initial assumptions differ. Just because two guys swing the same bat in the same arc doesn't mean their ball will land in the same spot -- it depends on the size of the man and his musculature, and the size of the ball, and the speed of the wind, among other things. Initial conditions change the answer.
 

The Outsider

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,418
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
[MENTION=5789]Beefeater[/MENTION]

If something is good because God wills it, then morality is something completely arbitrary. It would be redundant to say that God is good, as it would be merely stating that God acts in accordance to his own will; and from that it follows that any ethical statement of the form "God wills us to do what is good" is logically empty and identical with the statement "God wills us to do what he wills us to do".

Now to avoid a state of affairs where everything is or could be permissible as long as it is done in accordance to any perceived understanding of the will of God, one would have to assume that God has somehow decreed what is always morally right and wrong, for which The Bible seems a good candidate. But in such a case one could simply ask what if God has already decreed that lying is morally good and thus wills it that everyone should always lie, and being consistent with that, so would his word be a lie.

Or do you hold that God is also subject to some moral authority, either internal or external?
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Wouldn't you say this way of thinking promotes processes that are destructive for individuals and communities?
No, I would not say that it promotes such processes. I believe that truth and pragmatics make for a better foundation for social institutions, standards and laws than illusion and metaphysics. Illusion is always threatened by truth.

Is it a way of justifying cruelty, where perhaps intervention is more appropriate, even at the risk of violating individual autonomy?
It is, if you still believe the notion of justification makes any sense.

Even if you're right given your worldview isn't such a statement purely pedantic?
I cannot see why it should.

How do they compare ends and consequences?
They listen to their hearts to find out what is desirable.

If I'm talking about Pauly Shore films and you're talking about Buster Keaton films are we both just talking about films?
Yes. And what is true in fiction is not necessarily true in reality.

Do you believe in laws of logic?
In the same sense in which I believe in the rules of digestion.
 

Red Herring

Superwoman
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,488
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
If something is good because God wills it, then morality is something completely arbitrary. It would be redundant to say that God is good, as it would be merely stating that God acts in accordance to his own will; and from that it follows that any ethical statement of the form "God wills us to do what is good" is logically empty and identical with the statement "God wills us to do what he wills us to do".

Yes. That is exactly why I have such a problem with the story of Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son. It seems to undermine the idea of right and wrong.
 
Top