[NT] NTs, would you marry a Theist?

[Amargith]

What about the ones that believe in leprecauns and brownies that steal your keys?

 

[Perch420]

Never.

 

[MacGuffin]

I did and I go to church on Sundays!

 

[Valiant]

My 5 cents: they'd better do it, or they won't get laid at all

 

[FDG]

No, I would never be able to enter a relationship with a religious person. I would generally consider him / her an irrational mess of idiocy. Obviously this doesn't mean they cannot have their own version of christianity, islam or what-have-you, blending peculiarities from a variety of spiritual conceptions. Being religious here in Italy has a rather precise meaning (i.e. going to mass, marrying in a church, denying evolution, etc.), which I cannot accept.

 

[Valiant]

^ That particular kind of religious people suck, yes...

 

[Totenkindly]

I, personally, don't have a problem with other people's religions and have friendships with people of various spiritual beliefs. I respect and understand everyone's need for fulfillment and answers wherever they may be found. I was raised in a Christian household, was sent to a Christian school, but never felt any sort of conviction in what I was taught. After I made the decision to cease attending church, my mother told me one night (in tears) that it broke her heart that (because I am agnostic) we would be separated for eternity. It was fairly traumatizing that my mother, even though she loves me unconditionally, thought that I would go to "hell" because I did not subscribe to Christianity.

To a large degree that fits my experience (although I had a conflicted conviction in the specifics of the faith at first, then got to a point where intellectually I found I couldn't just agree with details just to agree).

The story about your mom is the same as the story about my mom, pretty verbatim. I felt bad for her pain, but in the end I can't believe (or pretend to believe) something the way she does just in order to make her feel better.

 

[freeeekyyy]

I'd only marry a theist. Atheist friends are great, they challenge me in ways my fellow theists do not. But marriage is another matter. If you don't share your deepest values, it just won't work.

 

[FDG]

I'd only marry a theist. Atheist friends are great, they challenge me in ways my fellow theists do not. But marriage is another matter. If you don't share your deepest values, it just won't work.

Wait, better call them "superstitions", not values.

 

[Stigmata]

I wouldn't. Personally, it stems from the desire to have a mind mate, and whereas there's various issues in which I could allow for flexibility in choices between us, that's not one of them. The only way I can see it working in the event both parties aren't theists is if that topic of discussion remained completely off-limits, which I wouldn't go for just on principle, and in the event it was to be mentioned it would constantly boil down to faith based ideology vs logical reasoning, and there's just too much natural incongruence there in something of that magnitude. I would be under constant self-restraint to not point out the logical inconsistencies associated with religion.

 

[xisnotx]

Well..since my whole relationship with the god concept is extremely complicated..I would never assume that someone else's is more more flawed (or less flawed for that matter). I would marry a theist..because despite being an agnostic atheist (as defined by the words that we humans have made to attempt to describe such indescribable things) I don't think my views are too far off from the christian/muslim/buddhist concept of god. I think that given the right theist it would work.

 

[Uytuun]

"theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.[4]"

^ (just to make clear what I'm referring to) probably not - holding that belief would cause a fundamental gap I think

Someone that then also turns to guidelines and rules and obligations that come with practising that belief: out of the question (been there, done that).

 

[poppy]

I am not sure if I could be in a long term relationship with a theist. It would require some amount of dismissing each others experiences ("So uhh...about that...You feel that this idea of God is really important to your life, my life experiences have lead me to believe that there is no such thing."). I assume a theist would be relatively uninterested in hearing my ideas about why there is no god, possibly hurt if they feel that I am invalidating their worldview, and I would have limited interest in hearing about why there is a god. That divide would grate on me.

On the other hand, I also really have no interest in being with someone who has a boner for Richard Dawkins and thinks that people who adhere to religions are "stupid"/"ruining the world". I enjoy religious art, literature and poetry, so I suppose I need a partner that respects religious philosophies but doesn't hold religious convictions. Someone who can appreciate metaphor, but perceives the world something like I do.

 

[EcK]

"theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.[4]"

^ (just to make clear what I'm referring to) probably not - holding that belief would cause a fundamental gap I think

Someone that then also turns to guidelines and rules and obligations that come with practising that belief: out of the question (been there, done that).

Your willingness to define and understand the terminology you use does you credit. It's rarer than one might expect but that's the issue when we use a common language. Most people assume that their internalized 'meaning' is the actual consensual meaning by vertue of both calling their language the same thing but we don't have actual knowledge of the 'meaning' experienced by others. It would only be the case if something like the platonic realm of the forms existed and there'd be a perfect form of the language, but no empirical data backs that up. And all evolving memepool\genepool will be structurally bound to contain variations, we merely call it the same thing because that's how our mind work. For example there's no such thing as a 'human being' there is a set of animals sharing genes and able to produce offsprings with each other but you can't point your finger at an archetypal human anymore than you can point your finger at archetypal english.
So we have to use some kind of agreed upon reference system, generally dictionaries, though they don't evolve as fast as the logosphere they describe.

Basically defining terminology is our way to try to get closer to an impossible 1:1 correlation in experienced meanings between communicating individuals.

 

[EcK]

What about the ones that believe in leprecauns and brownies that steal your keys?

depends if the leprecauns are of the voyeur kind. I like my privacy.

 

[Rasofy]

New in the 'eck shamelessly steals a thread and applies and give it a small perspective shift' series!

Get your copy now!
.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Hey, that's patented !

---------------
Answer:

I'm atheist and I voted yes.
Problem is that I'm pretty demanding already.
I would want to marry an intuitive (since i can't really connect with sensors), that is considerably intelligent, fit, fairly attractive, and not overly extroverted or too social. She should also have a healthy self esteem and, finally, her income shouldn't be much lower than mine.
Combining my already high demands with the religion factor alone would have a huge impact on my market share.
Now that I'm in my territory, I should mention that i consider theism and spiritism in general a weakness derived from fear of death.
Yes, a weakness. Sorry. Tough love time.
That said, I'd rather marry an atheist or agnostic, but a laid back theist woman would probably be bearable.

 

[guesswho]

Ok, let's think for a second.

The people who said they would not marry a woman who believes in God.

1. We don't choose who we fall in love with.
2. There are more women who believe in God (at least where I live) than women who don't believe (which are practically inexistent here).

So, theoretically, the odds of falling in love with a woman who believes in God are higher than the odds of falling in love with a woman who doesn't believe in God, since there are MORE OF THEM.

So, you are saying that, even if you would love her, you wouldn't marry her? That's nonsense.

PS: Religious fanatics excluded.

 

[freeeekyyy]

Wait, better call them "superstitions", not values.

Don't start with me.

 

[EcK]

Ok, let's think for a second.

The people who said they would not marry a woman who believes in God.

1. We don't choose who we fall in love with.
2. There are more women who believe in God (at least where I live) than women who don't believe (which are practically inexistent here).

So, theoretically, the odds of falling in love with a woman who believes in God are higher than the odds of falling in love with a woman who doesn't believe in God, since there are MORE OF THEM.

So, you are saying that, even if you would love her, you wouldn't marry her? That's nonsense.

PS: Religious fanatics excluded.

Well, I never fell in love with a religious person. Intelligence is negatively correlated to religious tendencies and I noticed that most of the people I love in my life also happen to be highly intelligent. But that's just me.

And the thread wasn't about love, it was about marriage. Most people marry after they got through the whole infatuation phase of love, so rational decisions about personal compability and the fact that if a potential for clash exists it'd have had time to blossom 'd take a major place in deciding to marry. (assuming that most people don't marry right away)

 

[ultimawepun]

Ok, let's think for a second.

The people who said they would not marry a woman who believes in God.

1. We don't choose who we fall in love with.
2. There are more women who believe in God (at least where I live) than women who don't believe (which are practically inexistent here).

So, theoretically, the odds of falling in love with a woman who believes in God are higher than the odds of falling in love with a woman who doesn't believe in God, since there are MORE OF THEM.

So, you are saying that, even if you would love her, you wouldn't marry her? That's nonsense.

Huh? What makes you think that it's equally likely for me to fall in love with everyone?