Thread: Marriage vs God Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022932

---

Posted by Scots lass (# 2699) on :
 
A friend of mine has recently become a Christian, which has left her husband very unhappy. He maintains that the same part of her brain that loves him is effectively having an affair with Jesus and that she has to choose between the two. Her options as far as I can see seem to be (a) Choose God (b) Insist that she can have both or (c) pick the husband and completely give up faith. Options (a) and (b) will have the consequence of ending the marriage, and to her appear like a choice to do so. The times I've spoken to her about it we seem to go round in circles.

She's asked me to ask the Ship what the thoughtful and considered options of the Shipmates are, and I've put it in Purgatory because she wants the discussion, rather than support. I'm aware that it might get moved depending on how the discussion goes.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
d) wait

The excited flush of 'first faith' which he is jealous of will soon go and equilibrium will be restored, hopefully.

<typo>

[ 30. October 2011, 09:59: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 

---

Posted by Full Circle (# 15398) on :
 
e) Talk about how love is cumulative - no one is issued with a set amount of love, either to distribute thinly between alot of relationships or deeply in one or two; rather different loves grow and strenghten one another, having a child doesn't stop you loving a spouse, having a parent doesn't stop you wanting a partner.

This also makes me wonder if the partner has heard too much of 'Jesus is my boyfriend - Jesus lover of my soul' type songs. Perhaps she could focus on other, less threatening analogies, 'Jesus as elder brother' - the first born of all creation, 'Jesus as friend' friend of sinners, shepherd or other relationship that would be meaningful to her and explain how the two loves can co-incide meaningfully together
 

---

Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
It's a tough situation to be in. But there are a couple of Bible passages that speak to these kind of circumstances.

St Paul addresses this issue in 1 Corinthians 7:12-17. The basic principle is that the Christian should try to stay in the marriage if their partner is willing. But they should not feel bound if their unbelieving husband or wife chooses to leave them.

1 Peter 3:1-2 encourages wives with unbelieving husbands to win them over by the purity and reverence of their lives. It's important for a spouse who has become a Christian to do everything possible to show in action, not just say in words, that they can love both their partner and God. As Boogie says, hopefully time will allow them to adjust and understand each other.

If the husband refuses to accept that his wife can love both God and him, then that's a difficult and heartbreaking situation. But the Christian wife shouldn't be made to feel guilty in those circumstances - if she's loving both her husband and God, but the husband is making her choose between him and God, then he's the one at fault. Denying one's faith shouldn't be an option.

It's still a gut-wrenching situation to be in though
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
Find some other non-Christian husbands with Christian wives to help him realise that the situation can work out? She'd be in an unusual church if there weren't others in her situation around.

But the Revolutionist's quote of Peter is the core - she needs to demonstrate by her life that it can hold together and that he'll get a better wife as a result of the deal!
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Is she sure that's the real reason and not a rationalisation to express his discomfort with some aspects of what she's doing? I had to explain speaking in tongues to someone I knew whose spouse converted via an alpha course. They were very upset and assumed spouse had gone bonkers and joined some cult. It probably wouldn't be getting characterised as 'an affair with Jesus' if it was Christianity of a form the husband was familiar with or which seemed to him 'normal'.

I explained it via church history to my friend and convinced him that even if not all churches did it, it was a respectable part of the Christian mainstream. The thing is, if someone is not religious and doesn't have evangelical family members (I'm guessing this is some version of modern evangelicalism) they may be very freaked out and upset by a conversion and what follows after it. It doesn't look normal or wonderful to them but scary and abnormal compared to what they know.


Does husband have any Christian friends/ relatives of any sort whose opinion he respects and who he trusts and who could be called upon to put in a good word? It probably helps if they are a very different sort of Christian. Sometimes it's just needing a bit of basic Religious Education and context from someone you don't think is trying to convert you. I was happy to do so despite huge theological differences, because I could explain a lot to him and back up his wife as doing something which wasn't my brand of Christianity but which was something unexceptionable and not to be worried about.

Once my pal re-calibrated and figured out that spouse hadn't gone loony/got into some cult, the marriage just settled down and he became quite supportive.

So worth asking: how weird might this seem to him and is there someone who could demystify it for him?

cheers,
L
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scots lass:
A friend of mine has recently become a Christian, which has left her husband very unhappy. He maintains that the same part of her brain that loves him is effectively having an affair with Jesus and that she has to choose between the two.

---

Herein lies the problem with an incarnate God.

Some people do have love affairs with the human Jesus.

It's called projection.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
How awful. sorry for them both.

I'm wondering if the real problem is not quite as he states, but rather a case of general jealousy of God's space in the spouse's life. Grahame Greene's book The End of the Affair gives a really vivid picture of just this sort of thing happening when a man realizes his lover now has a new focus to her life he simply can't compete with--and hasn't yet figured out that he doesn't have to. Because there is a real difference between worship and erotic love, and the most obvious is that you can do both at the same time, indeed worship of the Lord normally enhances the erotic love of a spouse. (Thus all those studies we were hearing about some years ago where they were shocked to find that the religious women (which from the sample seemed to = evangelical and mainline Christians) were the ones who had the best sex life.

But jealousy of a new interest in a loved one's life is very common, not just among spouses but among other family members as well. Sort of like having a new baby come into the family and start demanding time, becoming an obvious source of happiness for the parent, etc. etc. The remaining family members, even the dog, sulk (if they're not mature enough). Usually it sorts itself out over time, as they realize that the parent/spouse's heart is big enough to love them all. But the first little while is rocky, and sometimes people DO make demands like "you have to choose between me and X." It's a way of saying "Do you really love me anymore or not?" A rather nasty way, since it causes so much pain; but a very human thing to do.

For her own sake, I hope she IS experiencing the spiritual ecstasies and joys that often (but not always) come at the very beginning of Christian conversion. They'll pass away soon enough as the new life settles down. But for now they may be a comfort in the face of sharp pain.

Strategy? Well, obviously she wants to show by real concrete actions that her husband is not only still loved but now loved more than ever before. In other words, that the love of God is backing up/strengthening the love of husband. It would probably be a good idea to do some brainstorming on practical ways of demonstrating that stronger marriage love. For instance, is there some minor argument that has been annoying the hell out of him for years? (There usually is, even if it's as stupid as leaving one's shoes in the middle of the floor.) Could she do an about-face on that subject and shock the pants off him? Or for a greater challenge, is there some MAJOR issue (e.g. "I can't stand your mother") that her newfound Christianity might be able to carry her through (again, much to his surprise)? Though of course it's better to actually DO the thing (e.g. visit the mother) than to make grandiose promises about the future, since she is certainly still a sinner and to make a promise is to break one.

(In fact, I hope she stays away from making promises or resolutions of any kind during the first two-three years of her Christian life, because baby Christians are naturally prone to them and have no idea just how strong the sinful nature continues to be, even after conversion--what is easy the first week or month becomes hellishly hard to keep doing the sixth and seventh. The spiritual raptures do fade, it's perfectly normal and healthy--though they may return upon occasions--but they won't be enough to carry her through the difficult task of faithful love for difficult people lifelong. For that she's going to have to learn by doing, by depending on Christ.)

Now, about the husband--I'd suggest a "water" strategy here. As much as possible, don't resist him. Flow around him. He is trying to force a choice, most likely out of panic and jealousy. Stay out of those arguments to the extent you can (sorry, can't find a way not to write in the "you" language, pardon my grammar). Which is to say, don't fight back. Get sleepy/distracted/busy/interested in sex instead. Put the discussion off until later (by which time he'll have had more chance to see how much you really DO love him, by your actions. If you know a fight is brewing, pre-empt it by arriving with another agenda (whether that be sex or "honey, the car won't start"). The arguing will do no good, the basic problem is emotional and not logical, and the only cure for it is patience, love and time. When you must discuss it, try answering the real issue ("Do you still love me? How can I be sure?") and not the official issue ("there's not room enough for me and God both in your life"). That means your conversations will likely sound a bit odd, as he tries to frame it one way (a seemingly logical debate) and you answer in another way ("Yes, I love you and I always will. What would you like for dinner tonight?")

If you can avoid verbal "choose NOW!" engagement long enough, he should start to calm down enough to realize what your daily life actions indicate--that you love him just as much as ever, and more so. The time to have the debate ideally is when he's no longer interested, because he's found the answer for himself.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scots lass:
A friend of mine has recently become a Christian, ... Her options as far as I can see seem to be (a) Choose God (b) Insist that she can have both or (c) pick the husband and completely give up faith. Options (a) and (b) will have the consequence of ending the marriage, and to her appear like a choice to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
If you read anything about family theory -- anytime you introduce a new individual to a group, you're going to create tension and dislocation. And that's what this woman has effectively done, at least in her husband's perception. (If you're Trinitarian, she's introduced THREE new Persons.;-)) You can't blame him for his feelings.

---

Yes, that marriage is going to be a little crowded.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
There is a saying that all new Christians should be locked in a closet for six months.

They are sure they have found something wonderful (they're right) and they want everyone else to know the Lord in the same way that they do. It ain't gonna happen.

I think this wife should stop talking about religion and not let it infringe on her husband's life any more than necessary. At the same time she should be very loving and patient, going out of her way to do things that her husband likes.

I think that after a few months things will calm down.

Moo
 

---

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Soberly, I agree that time may smooth this over. My immediate reaction, though, is that she may well be better off without a husband who issues an ultimatum, a dandy way to sabotage a marriage. If she gives in on this point, who knows what he may veto next?
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Lots of good things have been said before now on this thread. Allow me to be the cynical old fart.

He is trying to manipulate her back to whatever they both were before her conversion. He doesn't like what she thinks now and he doesn't like her new buds. They take her away from what they had together before.

Whether or not his feelings are justified, they are real. So . . . ask him what aspect of her new faith troubles him most and start from there. Work on how they can accommodate and reaffirm each other and their relationship. Work on making him comfortable with her new buds and work on making her new buds comfortable with their old buds (letting new buds know that proselytizing will not happen for six months at least.)

Or

Tell him to put on his big boy underwear and celebrate her new faith with her.

The choice depends on whether or not hubby is worth accommodating.
 

---

Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :
 
Well, if she was a Catholic Christian, then it would be relatively easy: marriage is a Christian vocation. If she's doing anything as a Christian which is damaging her marriage, she's getting it wrong; her marriage is her way to God - or at the very least, a major part of her way to God.

So as a Christian she should be more committed to her marriage than she was before; and as she has the example of Jesus's self-giving and total commitment to the Church, she will know what her self-giving and total commitment to her husband should be.

Perhaps if that's the way she lives her Christianity in her marriage, he'll start to see the advantages.

I don't know that all denominations would ask her to see it that way, though.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
This isn't fair on Scots Lass as it isn't answering her question. But, Conjunx, despite two other distinctly odd contributions, I had thought what you said was the general Christian consensus. I wasn't under the impression that there was any specifically Catholic claim to that understanding.
 

---

Posted by Scots lass (# 2699) on :
 
Thanks for all the replies. I don't think that she's been trying to shove it all down his throat, and I certainly don't think she's projecting, quite apart from anything else she thinks that the whole Jesus is my boyfriend thing is a little bit creepy. Part of the problem is that the husband doesn't seem to want to give it time.

quote:

---

If she's doing anything as a Christian which is damaging her marriage, she's getting it wrong; her marriage is her way to God - or at the very least, a major part of her way to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scots lass:
I happen to think the husband is all kinds of wrong in not being prepared to believe she can love both and in not wanting to wait to see, but that is obviously my perception. I would imagine that his view of the situation is a bit different. Zacchaeus's concerns about the end result are mine as well.

---

quote:

---

If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

---

quote:

---

A friend of mine has recently become a Christian, which has left her husband very unhappy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
This isn't fair on Scots Lass as it isn't answering her question. But, Conjunx, despite two other distinctly odd contributions, I had thought what you said was the general Christian consensus. I wasn't under the impression that there was any specifically Catholic claim to that understanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scots lass:

quote:

---

(Coniunx)If she's doing anything as a Christian which is damaging her marriage, she's getting it wrong; her marriage is her way to God - or at the very least, a major part of her way to God.

---

Coniunx, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by marriage being her way to God - that doesn't really make sense to me.

---

quote:

---

But as it appears to me, the problem is not what she's doing as a Christian, it's being one at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

---

More generally how would people explain that passage to the spouse of a new convert?

---

quote:

---

Did she know in advance that her husband would be upset? If so that adds a different aspect. For example: I know my wife would be upset if I joined the RCC. Many christians would be upset if their spouse de-converted or became a JW or Mormon.

---

This interests me, because when I met my husband I was a practising Pagan. He never joined in, as such, but was happy enough to go along to moots and festivals and camps, and joined me in planning a handfasting. He didn't mind at all how often I referred to or invoked any number of Goddesses or Gods and cheerfully accepted whatever I felt the need to do in thanking the earth for things, celebrating, giving presents and so on. We celebrated Yule on December 21st rather than Christmas on the 25th, and Eostre in early April. We had a naming ceremony for our son at a Beltaine camp to which he was happy to invite his family, but all the while he himself kept apart, because he didn't believe in any of it. Does that make sense? He'd stand beside me, but not wish to speak, or have me say 'we ask...' on his behalf.

So when I converted to Christianity I naively imagined he'd be equally happy to go along with that - being social on the fringes without actively signing up for anything. Turns out he had a hidden antipathy for the church. It's taken 8 years to get any kind of non-hostile reaction to the church community and I've had to be patient and subtle and willing to put the church second in any number of ways. But it's church you (one ) puts second - not God. One can continue to think about, praise, love, worship, thank, delight in, be with and generally be known by God without saying a word or raising an eyebrow.

If he wants to control her thoughts, he's not entirely rational.
 

---

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :
 
When I got married I made vows in a church before God. I believe that God expects me to take them seriously. Marriage first Church second. I would never had been ordained, If my husband who was not then a Christian, would have found my ordination in anyway a threat to our marriage I would have found other ways to continue to live out my Christian life as a member of our family and community. I would have struck some kind of agreement with my husband about the time I spent at church. This of course would have no change in my own private prayer, Bible study, and works of mercy. Yes, my husband attends church now, just not mine. This by the way is not a bad thing we discovered.
 

---

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I wonder if the wife is being just too good and pious - there is nothing worse than being managed by a do-gooder!
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

---

More generally how would people explain that passage to the spouse of a new convert?

---

Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand, and addressed first to people in a society in which clan / tribe / family tended to outweigh all other considerations. We (mis)understand it from a very different society and language.

Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.

In Christ we die and are resurrected; the resurrected us is more capable of loving and giving, and the spouse should be the first beneficiary of the change.

---

My poor father is still flummoxed by this passage. He became a committed Christian rather late in life, mostly in response to my missionary brother I believe. But he has always been fiercely loyal and protective of his family. The whole love/hate dichotomy in the passage rocked him on his heels. At least three of us (family and priest) have tried to explain that ancient usage was different to modern English usage, but the word "hate" screams in his ears. And there is no way in hell he'd ever "hate" his family.

I hope Jesus will explain it to him some day.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.

---

That may be the theory, but how it works out in practice can often be more difficult.

I am a Christian, and I still struggle with the idea that my wife should choose God over me in the event of such a choice having to be made. How much more will someone who isn't part of the church struggle with that knowledge - especially as them not being part of the church makes such a choice more likely to have to be made?

Incidentally, I wonder if people on this thread have considered what their reaction would be if the couple in question had started out Christian but one of them decided to renounce their faith. Would the spouse who remains in the church be expected to just suck it up and deal, or would any unhappiness or discomfort on their part be seen as justified?
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
For what it's worth (not much then ), I'd say that both are entitled to their discomfort and even grief and anger for the way it used to be. It's hard when a person you love changes in a really fundamental way, even if it's a change that you firmly believe yourself is for the better. And if you don't believe that,

It doesn't matter whether it's a case of one spouse suddenly becoming Christian or a case of one suddenly going apostate. It's going to hurt, and the hurt one is entitled to have that recognized and taken into account.

But in either case, you hope the couple will adjust to the new reality and continue loving each other. (and no, Marvin, I don't think the Christian spouse in a case like you mention is entitled to special privileges more than the nonChristian spouse of the OP. If anything, the burden of continuing to love falls more heavily on the Christian whose spouse has left the faith, because the Christian has the strength and help of Christ to lean on to get through the grief. A non-Christian spouse hasn't got the same resources and should probably be cut more slack.)
 

---

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand, and addressed first to people in a society in which clan / tribe / family tended to outweigh all other considerations. We (mis)understand it from a very different society and language.

Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.

In Christ we die and are resurrected; the resurrected us is more capable of loving and giving, and the spouse should be the first beneficiary of the change.

---

quote:

---

Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand, and addressed first to people in a society in which clan / tribe / family tended to outweigh all other considerations. We (mis)understand it from a very different society and language.

Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.

In Christ we die and are resurrected; the resurrected us is more capable of loving and giving, and the spouse should be the first beneficiary of the change.

---

Which, however way you put it, means that the conversion has instituted a fundamental shift in the balance of the marriage, that the marriage and the husband are no longer first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:

quote:

---

Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand

---

Is there any evidence for this? Other than that's what people need to believe to make the teaching palatable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Which, however way you put it, means that the conversion has instituted a fundamental shift in the balance of the marriage, that the marriage and the husband are no longer first.

Taken altogether what you are saying comes across as: "When we said nasty X we actually meant mild Y, and when we say you should put A above B, that's actually an indication of how important B is." To which the spouse could respond: "You really expect me to swallow all of that? That's how politicians speak when they want to dress up their real intentions to win over the voters."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand, and addressed first to people in a society in which clan / tribe / family tended to outweigh all other considerations. We (mis)understand it from a very different society and language.

Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.

In Christ we die and are resurrected; the resurrected us is more capable of loving and giving, and the spouse should be the first beneficiary of the change.

---

Which, however way you put it, means that the conversion has instituted a fundamental shift in the balance of the marriage, that the marriage and the husband are no longer first.

---

I think you miss the point. Let's try putting it this way.

Yes, she puts Christ first; at the point of conversion, that's what she does. However, He immediately tells her that, in putting Him first, she has recommitted herself to putting her marriage first, as that is her way to know Him more fully.

By the time she tells he husband about it, he's back first - and there's a whole new level of authority telling her to keep it that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:

quote:

---

Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand

---

Is there any evidence for this? Other than that's what people need to believe to make the teaching palatable?

---

There's a ton of evidence, though we probably ought to be in Keryg to attack it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's very true, this change has shifted the balance of the marriage (in the man's favor, actually, but he can't be expected to understand that).

---

Except that's not true, is it. OK, there might be the theoretical "Christians should love their spouses more" handwaving going on, but when it comes down to it the fact remains that henceforth, if the husband wants to do something that the wife judges to be against her new religious morality she is obliged to choose that morality over him.

And let's face it - Christians are known for having some 'fun' moral rules. Any one of a number of previously-insignificant things - using contraception, eating meat on Fridays, having disposable income without giving it away, lie-ins (or sports) on Sundays, not having a problem with homosexuality, taking the kids out trick-or-treating at Halloween, and many more depending on denomination and personal interpretation - might now be off-limits to her, which if he wants to keep doing them is going to cause problems.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Oh dear. Maybe I understand better what the problem is here now.

No, there's a difference between "Christ first" and "Christian morality first," particularly when those moral rules are ... dubious, and not accepted by even half the Church at large.

Choosing Christ first is a given for any Christian, yes, and not just over spouses but over one's own self too. (which is highly unpleasant I can tell you)

But Christian customs, "rules," and crap like that--no. The kind of thing you cited are indifferent matters--they're in a different class from (say) "Thou shalt not murder." I can have a lie-in Sunday morning if I so choose; it is no sin. Now Christ would have something to say to me if I continually, voluntarily, perpetually, made it a habit to avoid any Christian worship or gathering altogether any time, anywhere. But I can't see this husband being so unreasonable as to forbid her to visit worship ever, at any time, in any place. Is that your reading of him?

Same with wearing makeup, going to movies, having hot sex, trick or treat, choices about donations--all this crap is in the "work it out for yourself" category, not in the Big Ten of commandments. And really, I can't see this guy wanting his wife to break those--murder? adultery? um yeah. No. 3 (about the Sabbath) is covered above.

I really, really hope she hasn't got roped into a denomination that mixes up the essentials with these manmade traditions. Because it's damn hard for any Christian, let alone a newbie, so stand up to a so-called church authority and say, "You're talking nonsense. Christ does not require that of me."

Is it possible for Christ to require something a husband will contradict? Sure, but it happens more rarely than you'd think. He could (for instance) demand that she take part in prostituting their child (yechhhh). Or in some kind of murder plot (yeah, right). Or that she burn incense and worship (insert deity of your choice here), or the marriage is over. In those extreme cases, you have to make a choice. And the choice will be for Christ. Which in 99.99% of cases is identical to what we would call a choice for decency.

But from the little we know in the OP, it doesn't sound like this husband is the kind of freak who would demand such evils. If his only problem is with the human interpretations of manmade traditions that have only the most tenuous support from God's Word (if that at all!), well, then, he should be just fine. And if he is the kind of indecent jackass who WOULD force such obvious clear evils as murder and child abuse on a wife, she'd be better off without him. Christian or no.

Really, the whole "choose between Christ or me" thing is a pretty rare conflict to actually come up in modern Western-world lives. I've only had to make such a choice a couple times, and in at least one case the asker was clearly and doctor-certifiably out of his mind.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I really, really hope she hasn't got roped into a denomination that mixes up the essentials with these manmade traditions.

---

Sadly, that would be most of them. And even if the denomination doesn't, the individual church often will.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Well, then we got our work cut out for us.
 

---

Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
[qb] Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand, and addressed first to people in a society in which clan / tribe / family tended to outweigh all other considerations. We (mis)understand it from a very different society and language.

Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.

In Christ we die and are resurrected; the resurrected us is more capable of loving and giving, and the spouse should be the first beneficiary of the change.

---

Which, however way you put it, means that the conversion has instituted a fundamental shift in the balance of the marriage, that the marriage and the husband are no longer first.

---

I think you miss the point. Let's try putting it this way.

Yes, she puts Christ first; at the point of conversion, that's what she does. However, He immediately tells her that, in putting Him first, she has recommitted herself to putting her marriage first, as that is her way to know Him more fully.

By the time she tells he husband about it, he's back first - and there's a whole new level of authority telling her to keep it that way.

---

No, I get the point completely. Having been a Christian I understand Christianspeak.

But you are not getting my point. You are taking a text that that says you have to hate your [husband] to become a disciple and claiming it to be a sign of Christian glorification of marriage. Why should someone outside the Christian circle, like the husband in the OP, place any trust in a religion - or its followers - that twists words and meanings to such an Orwellian degree?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Would you mind explaining what the purpose of your analogy is because, as far as I can see, it has no bearing on the issue in question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
But unless you have a very strange scope of normality, it's not twisted to say that in moving from one jurisdiction to another, you don't change your status in respect to what is and is not illegal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
But unless you have a very strange scope of normality, it's not twisted to say that in moving from one jurisdiction to another, you don't change your status in respect to what is and is not illegal.

---

Tell it to the jurisdiction you've just left.

Your analogy is, in fact, not analogous to the conversion in the OP - the wife has gone from a situation where she places her husband first in her affections to one where she places him second. From his point of view she's left his jurisdiction and moved to another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
Or have you still not got the point that it's only by placing her husband first that she can obey Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't want my wife to put me first because God wants her to do so, I want her to do it because she wants to.

---

Just to clarify where we've got up to - Marvin, you want your wife to put you first? Is she aware of that?
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't want my wife to put me first because God wants her to do so, I want her to do it because she wants to.

---

Just to clarify where we've got up to - Marvin, you want your wife to put you first? Is she aware of that?

---

We have an understanding.
 

---

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I wonder if the wife is being just too good and pious - there is nothing worse than being managed by a do-gooder!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
(Thus all those studies we were hearing about some years ago where they were shocked to find that the religious women (which from the sample seemed to = evangelical and mainline Christians) were the ones who had the best sex life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theophania:

My husband's view is that the belief itself is the problem: that I am having a relationship with another man, in effect, and that's not something he should put up with, for it is someone else in his place.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Evensong:
What if Jesus was female?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Do you have children? Would your love for a son be a threat to your husband? The love we have for Christ would seem to be more analagous to that sort of love-- the love of a mother for her son or a daughter for her father-- than the love of a woman for her lover (St. Teresa not withstanding). I don't know if that would help your husband understand.

---

I agree with your analogy, but husband doesn't. He says that's not the case, it's a romantic relationship, and nothing will persuade him otherwise. And yes, trying to look at it objectively, I do think husband would feel threatened by children if we had any. I'm so glad we don't.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Dear God, sweetheart. If he feels threatened by your own children (and I agree, I think he would), he's in serious serious need of counseling. Because that's not a romantic relationship by any stretch of the imagination, and it sounds to me like the truth is he doesn't want you having ANY close relationship but with him. Which is isolating and abusive.

Please do some very private thinking about your own self-protection--I don't mean physically, don't know that that's a problem, I mean emotionally. Because being married to someone who needs/demands to engross ALL your attention and love is rather like being married to a black hole. Impossible to satisfy, and a good recipe for eventually disappearing yourself.
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Theophania, I'm inclined to agree with Lamb Chopped. You should at least think about how your husband feels about your other relationships. How does he feel about your spending time with your parents or friends? Is he pleased that you have family and friends that love you and like to spend time with you? Does he support your being involved in activities that you enjoy, even if he doesn't share them?

If he tends to keep you away from other people, or if he tries to control who you see, and when, you should know that those are "red flags," and they suggest that the relationship is likely to be abusive -- and if it is not abusive now, it could become so in the future.

I don't know what kinds of services or supports are available where you live, but if you feel like your husband is manipulative or controlling, or that he is attempting to isolate you from other people, you may want to find a counselor who can help you work through your situation, and the best way to respond to your husband.
 

---

Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on :
 
Might as well add my 2 cents:
From what Scots Lass has said, it doesn't sound as if the husband objects to specific scriptural admonitions, or particulars of denominational theology.
It sounds as if (as others have noted) his wife has gone from having an "interest" in Christianity to faith--to relationship, and he feels threatened. The situation could be analogous to her having gone from an interest in X to suddenly making X priority. The kicker is that we don't know what the husband's context is for Christianity. So we don't know if he just feels threatened because anything has assumed more (or at least equal) importance to him (as he perceives it), or whether there are also some specific negative associations with Christianity.
Thus, the only suggestion I have to add is: if possible have a conversation, and try to find out the roots of his feelings about (not his thoughts, his feelings) Christianity. Whether or not such a conversation is possible depends on their relationship. Sometimes getting the deeper feelings on the table makes it possible to deal with something that has seemed intractable.
I wouldn't suggest marriage counseling as a first step, but if they continue at an impasse, a good marriage counselor may be able to help.
 

---

Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on :
 
oops, disregard my whole post. I stupidly hadn't seen page 2.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theophania:

quote:

---

originally posted by Evensong:
What if Jesus was female?

---

He'd find that a lot easier to deal with, he says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theophania:

quote:

---

originally posted by Evensong:
What if Jesus was female?

---

He'd find that a lot easier to deal with, he says.

---

How bout you? Would you be happy if Jesus was female?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theophania:

The other thing I meant to acknowledge from earlier is the "marriage is a vocation" ideas. I agree the marriage should be a priority and should be sincerely worked at: but when the only way to save the marriage or submit to the husband is to denounce faith, I think that's going too far. What do you all think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theophania:
As I understand it husband is still around because he hopes that [...] he will be able to bully me out of it if he tries hard enough.

---

If he said anything even remotely like that, I cannot imagine a clearer danger signal. That, combined with the irrational insistence that your faith really is a romantic (and adulterous) relationship with another man, suggests to me a distrustful and jealous personality who is prepared to hurt you to get his own way.

If your husband is not willing to do something about this, then you should - and that may ultimate involve you leaving him. . The duty of wifely submission, however you understand it, certainly does not include allowing your husband to bully you. He has no right to do that. Nothing in your marriage vows included consent to being abused.


I agree with you that denying your faith to satisfy your husband's demands is going too far. You should, of course, try to understand his objections and worries, and be patient and considerate in helping both of you find a solution. But if he does not want a solution, and will be satisfied only with coercing you into denying your faith, then it will be him, and not you, who has killed the marriage, regardless of who physically moves out. Do everything reasonable to avoid that, but "reasonable" does not mean putting up with bullying. That will destroy your life, if you let it happen, and won't do your husband any good either. Next to giving up your faith, that is an outcome to be avoided at all costs.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
And forgive me, but if you do give in and give up Christ, he'll only move on to making you give up something/someone else. Such people are never satisfied. Even when you have nothing left they will still punish you.

Because the problem lies not with you but within them.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Uh. Lots of good advice given here already so will only add a slightly different point.

My husband was very possessive of my attentions when we were first married.

As many of you have said, it was isolating and difficult.

But he did calm down eventually. It took quite a few years but he did grow out of his insecurity.

Seventeen years later, we are going strong.

Theophania
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Perhaps, Theophania, it would help not to talk to your husband too much about your faith, about God and about church, as he's already feeling quite threatened. There must be other people you can talk to about those things, and many other subjects you can talk about to your husband. If you do God-lite with him, and keep thoughts about your faith to private conversations between you and God (when in the bathroom if necessary!), plus discussion with a few well-chosen friends (when you can see them on your own), he will feel less anxious and then, over time, you might find you can gradually open up that part of your life to him again.

All the best.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
The bathroom is a good place. It's where I hid my faith for the first four years or so.
 

---

Posted by E to the i pi (# 16762) on :
 
Hello everyone, I am the husband in question.

This is my first post, and I haven't studied the relevant etiquette for this forum properly, so I hope people will excuse me if I do things wrongly.

To address some of the points people have made:

a) Yes, we are receiving professional marriage counselling, but have been having extreme difficulty convincing the counsellor that differences in belief are (at least in my opinion) the driving force for our current problems.

b) Yes, I admit that objecting to my wife's unilateral introduction of a new man into the relationship is controlling. I don't see how this is significantly different to my wife objecting to me introducing a new woman. Would anyone like to fail to explain?

c) Further to this, given that my wife dropping the new man doesn't seem to be an option and that it is always going to hurt me coming second to an imaginary man, does anyone have any bright ideas how we could still run a worthwhile relationship out of this? Note that I'm going to find suggestions that I convert would be patronizing, pointless and supporting my opinion of Christianity.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Surely, in true medieval style, aren't you supposed to challenge the Lord Jesus to a duel? If your honour is at stake, it's the only way.
 

---

Posted by E to the i pi (# 16762) on :
 
Curiously enough, in one of the few lighter moments between my wife and me, I have suggested taking the matter outside for a gentlemanly bout of fisticuffs between me and Him. This ended with me demonstrating how this would work and punching my own fist. It hurt.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Did she shout "Leave it, e to the i Pi. (Does she call you -1 for short?) He's not worth it."
 

---

Posted by E to the i pi (# 16762) on :
 
No she didn't. If that were her opinion, I think we'd be in fewer difficulties...
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
This ended with me demonstrating how this would work and punching my own fist. It hurt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alisdair:
Just as the Inuit, and other Arctic people, people have lots of words for 'snow', and we basically only have one...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alisdair:
Blast! Editing probs. 'Agape' is the key one in this case as it describes the love that is between a human being and God (including Christ), and also between Christians, or anyone else who is gving themselves unconditionally for the sake of another and the values embodied by Christ; that person may well be seen as an enemy, it doesn't matter.


Agape – unconditional love

Charity (agapē, ἀγάπη) is the love that brings forth caring regardless of circumstance. Lewis recognizes this as the greatest of loves, and sees it as a specifically Christian virtue. The chapter on the subject focuses on the need of subordinating the natural loves to the love of God, who is full of charitable love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Hello everyone, I am the husband in question.

---

quote:

---

a) Yes, we are receiving professional marriage counselling, but have been having extreme difficulty convincing the counsellor that differences in belief are (at least in my opinion) the driving force for our current problems.

---

quote:

---

b) Yes, I admit that objecting to my wife's unilateral introduction of a new man into the relationship is controlling. I don't see how this is significantly different to my wife objecting to me introducing a new woman. Would anyone like to fail to explain?

---

quote:

---

c) Further to this, given that my wife dropping the new man doesn't seem to be an option and that it is always going to hurt me coming second to an imaginary man, does anyone have any bright ideas how we could still run a worthwhile relationship out of this?

---

quote:

---

Note that I'm going to find suggestions that I convert would be patronizing, pointless and supporting my opinion of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alisdair:
And for a third, anyone who seriously sets out to follow Christ's way, very quickly learns that the call to put Christ (God) first is a call to truly understand the meaning of love for others, and that is expressed powerfully in the relationship between a husband and a wife.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[/QB]But in that situation the husband or wife is still coming second. A close second perhaps, but second nonetheless.

The problem is having something that is considered to be ultimately more important than the relationship. It doesn't matter if it's another person, a sport or a god - if when push came to shove the person would chose it over the relationship then it's a threat.

I don't get why so many people are finding that very simple problem so hard to understand. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't get why so many people are finding that very simple problem so hard to understand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The minute you have a child, you are relegated to 2nd place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
That is an interesting take on the situation. But would any Christian be willing to pledge allegiance to the Kingdom of Heaven rather than the individual?

(I hope that's general enough).

---

If you're British, you swear allegiance to the Crown, as personified by Her Maj QEII. And in olden times, if you believed in the Divine Right of kings, to quote Louis the (XX-ish, I can never remember which), "L'Etat, c'est moi". I am the State.

The New Testament was written at a time when the king/emperor was the very embodiment of the people, and a lot of theology in it (and afterwards, up to post-medieval times) is couched in those terms. A whole theory of atonement (Anselm's Satisfaction theory, and no shipmates, we're so not going there ) is based around medieval concepts of fealty and honour.

Jesus is our King, not our husband (and for the record, I'm a straight bloke).
 

---

Posted by E to the i pi (# 16762) on :
 
I don't think I've ever been called apon to give the loyal toast (I'm neither a member of the of armed forces, nor an MP.) If I were called I'm not sure whether I would do so or not. There are plenty of religious groups that would agree with me on that bit.

In other words, make heaven into a constitutional monarchy with a directly elected head of government and I'll start being more interested.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's more akin to having your partner change nationality and their allegiance is to another country. Odd, but not insurmountable, and the only real effect is if there's a war on between your country and theirs.

---

My atheist husband says he thinks it's a bit more complicated than that. And it's not just about the time element either, though he has a reciprocal "other woman" in sailing which takes up a roughly equivalent amount of time and interest as the practical bits of God stuff do to me.

He does feel, or rather did, that there's a 3rd "thing" in the marriage, which is God. But this was the state of affairs before we married, so we've had it much easier than Theophania and Pi fella.

It is, perhaps, a question of personalities and which bits of faith you actually talk about. Apparantly (this isn't something we discuss often!) I talk a lot about faith, and trying to understand what God meant or did by xyz, but I don't discuss Jesus in starry-eyed, breathlessly excited terms - not to suggest you do either, Theophania, ofc. He thinks he'd find that rather more difficult.

And I get irrationally grumpy at the start of every sailing season where said husband is bouncing up and down like an over-excited schoolboy at the prospect of a day's sailing, especially if I'm already tired and grumpy and the kids are fighting. So, yes, in a tiny way, I think I get it. It's not the time, or any sort of infidelity, it's that something else makes him this happy and it's not me. That's not mature, and it's not rational, but sometimes it rankles.

The whole God thing bothers my husband much less now. He comes to church occasionally (when it doesn't clash with sailing) even on church weekends away and thinks it's been rather a journey over 12 years or so. From my point of view, having an atheist husband over the process of nearly losing my own faith, has been A Good Thing.
 

---

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... The problem is having something that is considered to be ultimately more important than the relationship. It doesn't matter if it's another person, a sport or a god - if when push came to shove the person would chose it over the relationship then it's a threat. ...

---

But why should push come to shove? There isn't necessarily a conflict unless the two people decide to make it one e.g. by demanding a choice between football and church on Sundays. Any reason why they can't go separately, or alternate, or do something else entirely, or whatever? I think something is seriously awry in a relationship if it does reach the ultimatum stage, but I also believe it was awry before the two choices presented themselves. They're just the pretext for indulging in a bit of an "if you loved me" control game, which in itself is a sign of insecurity. (Trust me, I've been on both sides of the game. )

Relationships by their nature and variety aren't necessarily either/or, zero-sum arrangements (obviously some are). We can have lots of friends, and our friends don't ask to be ranked against, say, our jobs or family members or whatnot. As Henry Higgins asked, "Would you be livid if I took out another fellow?" OliviaG
 

---

Posted by BarbaraG (# 399) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
I'm a non-Trinitarian atheist, so I don't see that as just a substitution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
I don't think I've ever been called apon to give the loyal toast (I'm neither a member of the of armed forces, nor an MP.) If I were called I'm not sure whether I would do so or not. There are plenty of religious groups that would agree with me on that bit.

In other words, make heaven into a constitutional monarchy with a directly elected head of government and I'll start being more interested.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
My atheist husband says he thinks it's a bit more complicated than that. And it's not just about the time element either, though he has a reciprocal "other woman" in sailing which takes up a roughly equivalent amount of time and interest as the practical bits of God stuff do to me.

---

Any analogy breaks down if you push it far enough. Currently, I'm more than a little involved with a pseudo-16th century Austrian town, and will be for the probably the next 12 months. Guaranteed I'll spend more time there than here, and with fictional Jews, princes and librarians than with my wife. And I wasn't an author when I got married: be glad it's only sailing...
 

---

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

If you're British, you swear allegiance to the Crown, as personified by Her Maj QEII.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't get why so many people are finding that very simple problem so hard to understand.

---

Because, as someone said up-thread, it's as big a category error to see Jesus as a romantic love rival as it is to see a son or daughter as a romantic love rival.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
But why should push come to shove? There isn't necessarily a conflict unless the two people decide to make it one e.g. by demanding a choice between football and church on Sundays.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think each of the examples you gave, Marvin, would be issues to be worked out within the framework of the marriage. So far as I'm aware, the marriage promises do not exclude either of the partners from the possibility of a genuine change of mind on such matters. Such issues can be worked on, and worked out, if there is love and goodwill at work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't get why so many people are finding that very simple problem so hard to understand.

---

Because, as someone said up-thread, it's as big a category error to see Jesus as a romantic love rival as it is to see a son or daughter as a romantic love rival.

---

I wasn't talking about a romantic rival per se, as my inclusion of "sport" in the list of things that can cause such a problem should really have indicated.

It's about your partner having something else in their life that's more important to them than you. Something that, if it became necessary, they would leave you for. A romantic love rival is only one of many things that may be in that category, but they all potentially lead to the same place - separation. Hence why they're all threats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think each of the examples you gave, Marvin, would be issues to be worked out within the framework of the marriage. So far as I'm aware, the marriage promises do not exclude either of the partners from the possibility of a genuine change of mind on such matters. Such issues can be worked on, and worked out, if there is love and goodwill at work.

---

...and as long as both partners are coming from the same perspective in terms of what's really important.

But religious moral imperatives don't work like that, do they? Catholics don't get a pass on using contraception just because their non-religious partner doesn't want (any more) kids. Someone who now believes strongly in spiritual warfare isn't going to blithely accept their kids going out at halloween dressed as demons, regardless of how much the kids have enjoyed it in previous years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's about your partner having something else in their life that's more important to them than you. Something that, if it became necessary, they would leave you for. A romantic love rival is only one of many things that may be in that category, but they all potentially lead to the same place - separation. Hence why they're all threats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theophania:

quote:

---

originally posted by Evensong:
What if Jesus was female?

---

He'd find that a lot easier to deal with, he says.

---

Does he understand you're not having a relationship with Jesus' male parts?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alisdair:
For a start the man in question has been out of 'the market' for 2,000 odd years. For another, what does your position imply for any other male friends your wife may have? And for a third, anyone who seriously sets out to follow Christ's way, very quickly learns that the call to put Christ (God) first is a call to truly understand the meaning of love for others, and that is expressed powerfully in the relationship between a husband and a wife.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alisdair:
And for a third, anyone who seriously sets out to follow Christ's way, very quickly learns that the call to put Christ (God) first is a call to truly understand the meaning of love for others, and that is expressed powerfully in the relationship between a husband and a wife.

---

But in that situation the husband or wife is still coming second. A close second perhaps, but second nonetheless.

The problem is having something that is considered to be ultimately more important than the relationship. It doesn't matter if it's another person, a sport or a god - if when push came to shove the person would chose it over the relationship then it's a threat.

I don't get why so many people are finding that very simple problem so hard to understand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Much of what we believe about marriage is a romantic fiction. It's lovely talking about nothing coming before your spouse, but it's not true for any of us. The minute you have a child, you are relegated to 2nd place. Do something to hurt that child and you will find that out right quick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
That is an interesting take on the situation. But would any Christian be willing to pledge allegiance to the Kingdom of Heaven rather than the individual?

---

quote:

---

posted by Barnabas62:
Learning to live with differences of outlook is common to all marriages, isn't it? Maybe what made it easier in our case is that we were not Christian when we married and so we both experienced conversion within the framework of our marriage? Not sure. I think we argued more in the first five years after conversion than we did before!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theophania:

quote:

---

originally posted by Evensong:
What if Jesus was female?

---

He'd find that a lot easier to deal with, he says.

---

Does he understand you're not having a relationship with Jesus' male parts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Our human nature is inclined to be co-dependent with other people; I think this is because we were built to be co-dependent with God but it's easier to be co-dependent with a physically-present human than a spiritually-accessed God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
In the old marriage vows, women had to "honour and obey" their husbands. But I don't think that was ever meant to apply to their religious views... "..for better for worse, as long as ye both shall live" seems more appropriate.

If a couple marry, and both are atheists, does that mean either one is barred from changing their minds unless they both convert at exactly the same time?

In simple terms, I think he needs to cut her some slack, and remember that she is still his wife. He could even listen to her now and again.. you never know, he might learn something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
I would suggest to anyone that is considering a significant change in their philosophy of life (whether to or frrom belief, or from one to another) that they discuss it with the their significant other first, rather than presenting a fait accompli.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Despite the rhetoric, you don't "decide" to believe Jesus is Lord any more than you "decide" that strawberries are tasty. You have an experience that leads you to a conclusion. In fact, that's what life is made up of-- an endless string of experiences that you respond to, that shape you and your beliefs and values and interpretations of other experiences both past and future. That's true for believers and non-believers alike. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Despite the rhetoric, you don't "decide" to believe Jesus is Lord any more than you "decide" that strawberries are tasty. You have an experience that leads you to a conclusion. In fact, that's what life is made up of-- an endless string of experiences that you respond to, that shape you and your beliefs and values and interpretations of other experiences both past and future. That's true for believers and non-believers alike.

---

How about if it were instead one's sexuality, another thing people don't just decide? Should you just go "Hello darling, I'm gay/straight/bisexual"? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
sense of humour always helps - being the partner of a True Believer who can't rib their own beliefs is a recipe for sorrow

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But there is a difference, isn't there? The "I'm gay" conversation almost by necessity ends the marriage (although not often, in my experience, the friendship). The "I'm Christian" conversation does not need to do so, any more than a "I've decided to become an anthropologist" would.

---

quote:

---

Again, not meaning to suggest that life for you right now is easy, or that you should just "roll with it". But it also does seem you are making it harder than it need be precisely because of some of the unnecessary baggage and assumptions you are making. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It seems a bit odd that both you and your wife would both discuss your marriage crisis on the same community board - a christian board at that, when you are an avowed atheist...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It seems a bit odd that both you and your wife would both discuss your marriage crisis on the same community board - a christian board at that, when you are an avowed atheist...

---

*shrug*. A Christian friend of my wife's started the thread. My wife told me it existed and was interested in what my view of the discussion on the subject was and whether any of it was useful. I felt that much of it fundamentally failed to understand the point of my objection (I think Mr. Martian got closest) so gave my own opinion and bookmarked the thread. I admit I haven't read anything much else on here.

---

quote:

---

As has been said upthread, I think the notion that it is undermining the primacy of the marital relationship is probably as much as a romantic misunderstanding of marriage than it is about the nature of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

As has been said upthread, I think the notion that it is undermining the primacy of the marital relationship is probably as much as a romantic misunderstanding of marriage than it is about the nature of Christianity.

---

If you'd said a different conception, I'd have agreed with you. The way you phrase it makes it sound like you assume there can only one true, externally prescribed definition of marriage. At that point I think we reach the natural barrier in communication between believers and non-believers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Thought there are many ways that people find God, because of the way that belief and understanding works, it is not necessarily possible to discuss becoming a christian beforehand.

For many people belief strikes them without giving time to think about it. Also a lot of people don't go out to find God, he finds them along the way.

You see you be angry that your wife has made a decision without consulting you, but for those who have been hit by faith the decision is made for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Thought there are many ways that people find God, because of the way that belief and understanding works, it is not necessarily possible to discuss becoming a christian beforehand.

For many people belief strikes them without giving time to think about it. Also a lot of people don't go out to find God, he finds them along the way.

You see you be angry that your wife has made a decision without consulting you, but for those who have been hit by faith the decision is made for them.

---

So the argument goes that my wife's conversion was fated and she cannot influence her beliefs, but mine are down to free will and I should change them? That doesn't seem very consistent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't see anyone here expecting you to change your beliefs. Perhaps your wife hopes you will-- just as you hope she will change hers. But I don't see any expectation that you should come to faith on this thread.

---

quote:

---

But I do think you have some control over your interpretation of events. Clearly your wife's conversion has shaken up your domestic life, changed your relationship in ways you didn't choose. You're entitled to be pissed off at that, and to express that.

At the same time, though, some of the spin you're taking on this unexpected change of events is, I think, causing you unnecessary additional pain. Yes, it will be painful for you no matter what, but I think you are making it worse by the assumptions you are making about Christianity and "Christian marriage" (again, not really any different than "non-Christian marriage") and what it means for your wife to have a "relationship with Jesus".

I'm not saying that cuz I think you're a bad guy, but rather cuz I think you're a good guy and deserve to be happy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Thought there are many ways that people find God, because of the way that belief and understanding works, it is not necessarily possible to discuss becoming a christian beforehand.

For many people belief strikes them without giving time to think about it. Also a lot of people don't go out to find God, he finds them along the way.

You see you be angry that your wife has made a decision without consulting you, but for those who have been hit by faith the decision is made for them.

---

So the argument goes that my wife's conversion was fated and she cannot influence her beliefs, but mine are down to free will and I should change them? That doesn't seem very consistent.

---

quote:

---

I hadn't realised quite how culturally separated my wife and I were until this thing started.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
What I was trying to say to you that when your wife changed her beliefs, it may not have been possible to consult you about in the way that you seem to have wanted.
I wasn't trying to say anything about fate, just that you were not being excluded form her decision making, in the way that you seem to be thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
...According to her after the event, the whole decision process happened over the course of a month or more and she didn't tell me about it because "she thought I wouldn't be interested". I wouldn't like others to make that assumption of their loved ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Nobody here is expecting you to come to faith. What we are struggling with, is to understand why no compromise seems to be possible. You can only see a future in your relationship if you wife has no faith.

Most of us know lots of couples where one partner only has a faith and their relationship survives with a bit of give and take on both sides.

Indeed on this board there are also people whose partner has a different faith from them, but they cope together.

That's the part that is hard to get a handle on, why there only black and white/either or, in the situation between you and your wife

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
If you committed a serious crime, and your wife knew - eg you hit a pedestrian whilst driving, paniced and fled the scene of the accident and couldn't bring yourself to go to the police - would you expect her to keep the secret out of loyalty to you and the primacy of your relationship, or would you be able to accept it if she put conscience / law first and went to the police?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Anthropormorphic deities can be seen as a social construct that exists to codify and justify pro social behaviour. Not sure what you think the idea of a Christian God is going to get your wife to do? Or why it would suddenly take up more time than if she took up bridge as a hobby.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Well, obviously, someone who believes in God won't see it as a cultural construct - but you have the option of seeing her religion in this way. As regards kids, I would have thought that would be open to negotiation. If you want your children to grow up to think for themselves, it probably best to expose them to a range of world views and teach them critical evaluation. If you want them to become Christian adults your best bet is rigid religious instruction - because children generally rebel against their parents.

---

quote:

---

The way you post about how you have reacted to her conversion, suggests you have come across as extremely controlling and possibly quite weird. Don't know how that has impscted on your relationship - but I am guessing not well. Have you considered going to Relate?

---

quote:

---

Often ideollogical and other rows in relationships are just proxies for more underlying issues in a relationship - if you value the relationship and want to salvage it you need to,move beyond intellectual debate and address such things. Eg. In general to what extent you and your wife compromise over disagreements within your relationship. Is it always you, and thus this is the straw that broke the camel's back, or always her and now you are not coping with her being assertive, or whateve.

---

I'm afraid for both me and my wife intellectual debate is central to who we are. And we're both sufficiently stubborn to stick to what we believe is right when it's important. Previously we'd just never been on opposite sides of it.

[ 13. May 2012, 19:21: Message edited by: E to the i pi ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
No kidding, but I seriously wonder what Jeremy Kyle and his aftercare team would make of all this...

Be a Guest on the Jeremy Kyle Show
(from the webpage):
Do you have an issue you feel The Jeremy Kyle Show could help you work out?

Relationships
If you’re worried your relationship will breakdown unless things change, call Jess on 0161 952 0750 or email Jess.Parkinson@itv.com

Dont forget to leave a telephone number if you text.
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
You don't believe there is a God - so presumably you just believe it to be a social construct? Other wise you'd be saying its real

So what is it you find abusive? Incidently, how do you intend to derive a moral system for you progeny - humnism? What makes that less abusive?

I wonder from your post above if you and your wife take some pride in being stubborn, never yielding. could be you are both seeing this as test you have to win.
 

---

Posted by E to the i pi (# 16762) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
You don't believe there is a God - so presumably you just believe it to be a social construct? Other wise you'd be saying its real

---

quote:

---

So what is it you find abusive? Incidently, how do you intend to derive a moral system for you progeny - humnism? What makes that less abusive?

---

quote:

---

I wonder from your post above if you and your wife take some pride in being stubborn, never yielding. could be you are both seeing this as test you have to win.

---

I think we both see this as a test we've lost
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
I realise its a tangent, but;

I don't think do as you would be done by works as fundamental rule because it is too easy to define out others as not being similar enough to matter. And it is based on a fundementally egocentric view of the world. Measuring the world by our own likes and dislikes. (Also, trying to get a child to reason like that can lead to a very Hobbesian social Darwinist position.)

Non-tangentyness - compromise is not weakness it is the stuff the social world is made of, it is something you could potentially both learn. You don't *have* to lose.

[ 13. May 2012, 19:56: Message edited by: Think² ]
 

---

Posted by E to the i pi (# 16762) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I realise its a tangent, but;

I don't think do as you would be done by works as fundamental rule because it is too easy to define out others as not being similar enough to matter. And it is based on a fundementally egocentric view of the world. Measuring the world by our own likes and dislikes.

Non-tangentyness - compromise is not weakness it is the stuff the social world is made of, it is something you could potentially both learn. You don't *have* to lose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:


I suspect the bridges have been burnt to cinder. However much we love each other, this is a divide that appears to be too important to both of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Purgatory is a board for serious discussion of issues, not the joint airing in public of personal relationship issues.

I note the couple in question are receiving counselling, which process should be governed by certain confidentiality protections and legal protections re advice. Clearly, neither Purgatory nor any other of our discussion boards has either of these safeguards. Nor should we be seeking to cut across anything said in that process.

So please bring the specifics of that part of the discussion to an end. This ruling is not intended to curtail more general discussions about the principles and issues which apply.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't see anyone here expecting you to change your beliefs. Perhaps your wife hopes you will-- just as you hope she will change hers. But I don't see any expectation that you should come to faith on this thread.

---

Whereas I see lots of people expecting me to change my beliefs in the incompatibility of my personal view of a rewarding relationship and belief in the Christian deities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

At the same time, though, some of the spin you're taking on this unexpected change of events is, I think, causing you unnecessary additional pain. Yes, it will be painful for you no matter what, but I think you are making it worse by the assumptions you are making about Christianity and "Christian marriage" (again, not really any different than "non-Christian marriage") and what it means for your wife to have a "relationship with Jesus".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
If my wife were to decide to come back to me on terms I could accept

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
I understand she's made her choice

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
I understand she's made her choice and am trying to find ways to continue on without her. Not the happiest time of my life I must admit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
If my wife were to decide to come back to me on terms I could accept

---

iow, do what you yourself refuse to do-- change an integral, core belief to suit your fancy.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
I understand she's made her choice

---

Obviously we're only seeing glimpses and tiny slices of a complex multi-faceted relationship here. But what I'm seeing looks far more like you are making the choice here, not her-- much as you are unhappy with the outcome.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
I understand she's made her choice and am trying to find ways to continue on without her. Not the happiest time of my life I must admit.

---

I am-- honestly-- very sorry that is the case, and that there is so little we or anyone else can do to help you thru this pain.

I am worried for your future relationships, as it seems to me this is a pattern that is doomed to repeat itself, whether or not a hypothetical future spouse changes religions or not. Perhaps when the pain is a little less fresh, you'll be able to reflect on this somewhat, and see the choices you both made just a bit more clearer.

I found Think's posts on this page to be very relevant and thoughtful, fwiw.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I am worried for your future relationships, as it seems to me this is a pattern that is doomed to repeat itself, whether or not a hypothetical future spouse changes religions or not. Perhaps when the pain is a little less fresh, you'll be able to reflect on this somewhat, and see the choices you both made just a bit more clearer.

I found Think's posts on this page to be very relevant and thoughtful, fwiw.

---

Your worry is noted. However when, after my wife finally gets round to divorcing me and assuming I eventually get the desire to seek a new life partner, I'll know that love won't conquer all and to stick to potential partners of a similar philosophy. Hopefully my wife will soon find a nice Christian chap to give her a shoulder to cry on and take her mind off me. Alternatively she could use Jesus for this, but it would rather prove my original thesis.

The rather unromantic point of this story seems to be not to get involved with people outside one's own creed for fear of following the Romeo and Juliet story too closely. And I *know* that there's scripture supporting that view. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
....I'll know that love won't conquer all and to stick to potential partners of a similar philosophy....

---

You'll know that love won't conquer all for *you*. Lots and lots and lots of people have happy loving marriages or other long term relationships with people with completely different belief systems.

Do you think those people are better at love than you are?
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Better still, why not just convert and be done with it!
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Better still, why not just convert and be done with it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

I am not worried because I think you'll have difficulty finding someone with the same religious views as you. Obviously, that's not all that hard to do. I'm worried because of the assumptions you're bringing to marriage-- your assumptions that marriage requires: 1. Being in agreement about most everything. 2. Your partner never changing. 3. Avoiding compromise.

You could marry someone who agrees with you on each and every point re: religion and never wavers from that position. But you WILL encounter problems irregardless if you don't rethink some of those basic assumptions about marriage. As was noted upthread, we have shipmates here in all sorts of "mixed marriages", including ones precisely like yours (in terms of religious convictions), but they are able to make it work-- some quite happily-- w/o pretending they believe something they don't, w/o giving up their basic core values. They make it work w/ mutual respect and compassion.

Just curious: why are you continuing to post here-- given, as you said, it's not entirely an impartial place? Is there something in you that hopes to find a workable compromise? Are you hoping to convince us of your rightness in order to win this argument with your wife? Or are you looking for a place to vent your anger at the community you believe is stealing your wife away? (any of those are OK, just wondering).

---

Actually I'd say my thesis is dual to yours. A marriage (can I say relationship instead?) is as you say based on mutual respect and my wife and I have ended up in a situation where we cannot respect each others' positions. She finds my need for the primacy of human relationships just as objectionable as I find her need for the primacy of her Messiah. This isn't something which compassion can really overcome and is pretty much impossible to compromise on without compromising one of our positions. I suppose in some sense there is only room for one fundamentalist opinion in a relationship.

As to why I've posted: a) People have kept on asking me questions, or putting words into my mouth that I haven't agreed with. b) I'd hope that others in a situation with any similarity might be interested in how I, having been through this, think a less messy resolution could be achieved.

P.S. I'm afraid irregardless isn't a word

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk

You'll know that love won't conquer all for *you*. Lots and lots and lots of people have happy loving marriages or other long term relationships with people with completely different belief systems.

Do you think those people are better at love than you are?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Better still, why not just convert and be done with it!

---

Which, after all, is precisely what you're asking of your wife.

---

I admit, both of us converting to Thor worship would probably have fixed the problem. Alternatively, my wife has shown that her belief system is mutable, mine has shown no sign of it
 

---

Posted by Poptart22 (# 17096) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Better still, why not just convert and be done with it!

---

Which, after all, is precisely what you're asking of your wife.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
Believing in God is the most important decision a person can ever make. It is worth losing everything else. This decision will affect her entire eternity. She should count the costs first, but those costs are easily worth it.

But that doesn't mean that her marriage has to end. Another poster mentioned 1 Peter 3. A Christian wife should be loving and submissive to her husband (as long as her husband doesn't require her to sin). If she is truly following Christ, she will be treating her husband much better than before. It shouldn't take long for him to realize that this version of his wife is better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
If my wife were willing to put me first or I was able to accept our relationship being put second (both by my standards) then I could see it working.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
If my wife were willing to put me first or I was able to accept our relationship being put second (both by my standards) then I could see it working.

---

Hmmm. What makes you think she put you first before she converted? Surely you only came second then? Unless you believe romantic love has a supernatural quality in that it trumps instinctive self-preservation?

Where's the evidence that you've actually slipped in the rankings, rather than remained where you were with first and third changing place?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Actually I'd say my thesis is dual to yours. A marriage (can I say relationship instead?) is as you say based on mutual respect and my wife and I have ended up in a situation where we cannot respect each others' positions. She finds my need for the primacy of human relationships just as objectionable as I find her need for the primacy of her Messiah. This isn't something which compassion can really overcome and is pretty much impossible to compromise on without compromising one of our positions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk

You'll know that love won't conquer all for *you*. Lots and lots and lots of people have happy loving marriages or other long term relationships with people with completely different belief systems.

Do you think those people are better at love than you are?

---

No, not at all. They just possibly have less strongly held beliefs, or at least a less incompatible set.
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
If my wife were willing to put me first or I was able to accept our relationship being put second (both by my standards) then I could see it working.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

P.S. I'm afraid irregardless isn't a word

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

P.S. I'm afraid irregardless isn't a word

---

Webster's said you would say that: I'm afraid it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

P.S. I'm afraid irregardless isn't a word

---

Webster's said you would say that: I'm afraid it is.

---

You are, perhaps unsurprisingly, given what I suspect are our respective theological positions, quoting from a source I don't believe in.

---

Houston, I see the problem.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
My pastor and spouse are of two differing belief systems and are comfortable navigating that territory (more comfortable, perhaps, than some of the people around them who have very black-and-white ideas about the nature of God and salvation).

I haven't read each and every post here, but I'm still trying to unpack what the "cultural differences" are, sir, that you feel are creating an irreparable tear in you and your wife's relationship. Can you give us some specific examples?

People's intimate relationships are impacted by outside forces all the time. Example: When I met my partner, her adult children (from a disastrous early 20's marriage) were both living their own lives at opposite ends of the continent and, despite the occasional visit back or forth, were something of an abstraction to me; we got along very well, and I was relieved that they liked me and had given my partner their approval of our relationship, but in a sense they were always "out there" somewhere in the wider world. In the last two years, though, their life changes -- a baby, two marriages and two acute healthcare crises -- have drawn our lives far closer together. Have I ever resented this intrusion of their lives and problems into our household? I'd be lying if I said no; I mean, there have been days when I've thought, "I really didn't think I was signing up for this." I think that's true of anyone in a life partnership. And then you have a cry or get mad or have a glass of wine, and then you pull up your grown-up pants and get over it. And I've every reason to believe that my partner has thought exactly the same of me, especially in this past year when I had a life-threatening episode and needed months to recover, effectively placing most of the burden of our household management on her. It's what the "for better, for worse" is about in marriage vows.
 

---

Posted by E to the i pi (# 16762) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

I haven't read each and every post here, but I'm still trying to unpack what the "cultural differences" are, sir, that you feel are creating an irreparable tear in you and your wife's relationship. Can you give us some specific examples?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Houston, I see the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Better still, why not just convert and be done with it!

---

quote:

---

In similar fashion, if the marriage began with the premise of an intellectual atheist and an inactive Christian respecting each others' differences, well, any significant move away from the center of that is going to be disruptive, and it isn't fair (IMO) for one spouse to make such a change unilaterally and insist that the other just accept it.

---

What I can't understand is why someone would insist on a veto on a spouse's new beliefs or opinions. That seems unfair and frankly unlikely to work; marriage shouldn't be the thought police. I would, however, expect discussion and compromise on time spent in activities related to the change. And IMO each spouse should respect the other's opinions, refraining from both sarcasm and self-righteousness. Time spent in discussing the change should mostly be on terms the unchanged one can handle. I don't deny working through the change would likely be difficult.

Example: If someone who had previously been lukewarm came to the conclusion that there is no God, but both spouses had been previously involved in many church activities that the now unbelieving spouse doesn't want to participate in, it would be good for the marriage for the believing spouse to pull back from the less compelling church activities and carve out time for new activities they may both enjoy. And it would be well for the unbelieving spouse not to expect the Christian spouse to do a Ruth/Naomi "your lack of God will be my lack of God". Or for the believing spouse to condescendingly consider this atheism a "phase" to be indulged 'til the wandering sheep returns to the flock.

Kindness and respect are key, at least in most disparate yet successful marriages I've known.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
As my Buddhist friends remind me from time to time, attachment can create suffering -- in some cases, perhaps a partner's attachment to a sort of snapshot picture of that couple that was true at the beginning of the relationship but may not be true now.

Serious illness can transform relationships between partners in a way that makes one partner feel as if something has been lost in the relationship. Retirement is another thing that can be a real stressor between couples as they renegotiate their roles in the household. Education/life experience can turn the passive, deferential partner in a relationship into someone who is more confident and independent, and that in turn can feel threatening to a partner who started out as the intellectual/experiential superior in the relationship, who now realizes that s/he's dealing with someone who has become a peer.

I think partners whose relationship is based on friendship (which, frankly, not all relationships are) are able to navigate these sorts of changes.
 

---

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Bartolomeo:

quote:

---

In similar fashion, if the marriage began with the premise of an intellectual atheist and an inactive Christian respecting each others' differences, well, any significant move away from the center of that is going to be disruptive, and it isn't fair (IMO) for one spouse to make such a change unilaterally and insist that the other just accept it.

---

What I can't understand is why someone would insist on a veto on a spouse's new beliefs or opinions.

---

quote:

---

What I can't understand is why someone would insist on a veto on a spouse's new beliefs or opinions. That seems unfair and frankly unlikely to work...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
... I think that, prior to marriage, we have an obligation to share who we think we really are with our future spouse. After marriage, I think there's an implied covenant to refrain from major lifestyle changes without some informed consent from the other spouse, or renegotiation of the ground rules of the marriage. ...

---

quote:

---

For example if someone were to marry a surgeon whose plans were to maintain a career in medicine and establish and follow a lifestyle consistent with a $300,000 income it would not be fair for said surgeon to decide to abandon that career in favor of a reclusive life of prayer, contemplation, and poverty. ...

---

quote:

---

From Olivia's post:
Like many others, I think the thread title is an artificially-created dilemma. Religion doesn't break up marriages or hold them together, people choose to do so. If a relationship gets to the "my way or the highway" stage over any issue, things are not good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I agree with that. Within marriage, each of us is entitled to have a change of heart, a change of mind, over little and large things. Commitment to a relationship, faithfulness in a relationship, cannot be conditional upon no minor or major changes of outlook and understanding. These changes may, almost certainly will, produce some strains, but they can be worked through. That's what "for better, for worse" involves, amongst other things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Two becoming one" does not envisage a loss of individual identity. So far as commitments not to change are concerned, OliviaG has nailed it.

I remember a very funny bit of play-acting by Rob and Marion White (at a Spring harvest event in the 1990s), who were acting out a row.

Rob was demonstrating an indignant recall of things which Marion had said on the issue they were having a row about. After some defences along the lines of "Did I say that?", "Perhaps you misunderstood me?", "That wasn't really what I meant", Marion came out with the clincher.

"Well .. I've changed my mind!"

Hoots of laughter everywhere, followed by "Hmmmm.."

quote:

---

From Olivia's post:
Like many others, I think the thread title is an artificially-created dilemma. Religion doesn't break up marriages or hold them together, people choose to do so. If a relationship gets to the "my way or the highway" stage over any issue, things are not good.

---

I agree with that. Within marriage, each of us is entitled to have a change of heart, a change of mind, over little and large things. Commitment to a relationship, faithfulness in a relationship, cannot be conditional upon no minor or major changes of outlook and understanding. These changes may, almost certainly will, produce some strains, but they can be worked through. That's what "for better, for worse" involves, amongst other things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Commenting on both responses.

@ E to the i pi. Is there a universal definition of faithfulness and commitment? Probably not. All I can say for sure is what I knew I was doing when I took my marriage vows, 44 years ago (when I was not a Christian). When I said "for better for worse", I did mean "for life, without qualifications". Knowing both that we would change and so would our life circumstances. Same applies to "forsaking all others". They are very simple, open ended promises with huge implications. With both of us coming from backgrounds of parents married for over 25 years, we'd seen from the inside what that might mean. And we'd talked about this stuff before we got married. Did we understand completely what we were promising to each other? Probably not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Well 44 years ago there wasn't the choice of places to get married that there are now. Weddings in church were much more the norm that they are today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Well 44 years ago there wasn't the choice of places to get married that there are now. Weddings in church were much more the norm that they are today.

---

I'd have thought unbelieving church weddings were much more the norm now than then, given the proportionate reduction in the number of self identifying Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think some basic non-secular definitions of faithfulness and commitment within a relationship are mutual exclusivity as sexual partners (now, I know that some polyamorous folks might object to that, but I think there's also some parallel train of thought within that way of thinking that assumes some degree of boundaries regarding intimacy with persons outside one's circle, so to speak); mutual respect and care on an ongoing basis, including in cases where one partner suffers a medical crisis or other issue; mutual emotional support both within the household and when engaging with the outside world -- in other words, not disparaging or shaming or making fun of one's partner; presenting as a united front.

I don't think those things extend to demanding that one's partner maintain the same belief system forever and ever, amen, or share the same political ideology, or share the same mindset on any number of things. For one thing, that's not within the power of one person to control in another (and if s/he thinks it is, s/he is delusional); and it's not reasonable. I'm not the same person now that I was 30 or 20 or 10 or even 5 years ago. I think I've changed a lot in the context of being in a committed relationship -- that indeed the relationship itself changes us both over time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Since I've become a Christian, one of the things I've realised is that Registrars may legalise and Churches may solemnise, but essentially people marry each other. Without commitment, there is no marriage. Folks can go through the form "with their fingers crossed" or because "it's the done thing". Neither of those amounts to much unless you mean what you say.

And as I indicated earlier, learning to live with the promises you made, discovering the full meaning of them, is part of the adventure. The time of our lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Since I've become a Christian, one of the things I've realised is that Registrars may legalise and Churches may solemnise, but essentially people marry each other. Without commitment, there is no marriage. Folks can go through the form "with their fingers crossed" or because "it's the done thing". Neither of those amounts to much unless you mean what you say.

And as I indicated earlier, learning to live with the promises you made, discovering the full meaning of them, is part of the adventure. The time of our lives.

---

Now that I'd agree with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As gently as I can say it, cliffdweller, seeing the rightness of an observation doesn't make it easier to live it out. It reads easier than it lives.

Plus this.

I'm not sure it's in keeping with the spirit of having this thread in Purg to inquire too closely about another Shipmate's consistency or integrity. It's not a C3 thing when someone has put personal evidence out there (that's one of the reasons why we advise caution about how much we say about ourselves and our lives on public boards) but these can be delicate and painful personal issues. None of us is wholly consistent.

I'm posting this with my Host hat off, responding as a Shipmate. Hope it's helpful. I'm sure you catch my drift.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Now that I'd agree with.

---

As gently as I can say this, let me ask: really? Because I'm not sure we're seeing that here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

a) Marriage (and relationships) are between people.
b) They don't work if there isn't commitment.

The last word means many different things to many different people and, I would submit will generally be more than just not dallying with one's secretary as LutheranChick has suggested.

---

quote:

---

I'm assuming you mean secular rather than non-secular? I'd also be interested in why you think sexual intimacy should be treated specially as the unique point in which relationships sacrifice freedom for security, and why that alone is assumed not to be going to change?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

---

Well, I'm not sure how "unique" I think sexual fidelity is vis-a-vis other kinds of faithfulness, except that I think it can bring especially messy, potentially devastating complications into a relationship ("surprise" children outside the marriage -- see the current trial of former Presidential candidate John Edwards for a timely example of that; STDs; the lack of trust issue inherent in sneaking behind one's spouse's back for sexual relations with other people) -- to me that's a whole 'nother level of trust/commitment problem than, say, one spouse having a midlife crisis and deciding to change political parties or switch from Christianity to Buddhism or to become a vegetarian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
L*R:

quote:

---

What I can't understand is why someone would insist on a veto on a spouse's new beliefs or opinions. That seems unfair and frankly unlikely to work...

---

I sympathize, Bartolomeo; you were in a pretty untenable position. But the question is: Did your veto work? Someone who went harebrained like your spouse did is not going to sit down nicely and say, "Honey, it's occurred to me "that the church is a fundamentally pagan and evil institution that should be destroyed, by force if necessary". Before I adopt that belief, I thought I'd run it by you for approval. What do you think?"

If the belief has not solidified, you might have a chance of persuasion. But unless part of the new belief were total submission to their spouse's will, there would be no power of veto. You could stand by your beliefs, come what may, but that still would not constitute a veto of your partner's thoughts. There could be only pained acceptance, compromise (maybe), constant quarreling, a combination of the above, or a parting of ways. Or...?

No, it wasn't fair. But if someone is of the temperament to adopt extreme opinions, any reasonable prior arrangement for discussion would be dust in the wind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Bartolomeo:

quote:

---

In similar fashion, if the marriage began with the premise of an intellectual atheist and an inactive Christian respecting each others' differences, well, any significant move away from the center of that is going to be disruptive, and it isn't fair (IMO) for one spouse to make such a change unilaterally and insist that the other just accept it.

---

What I can't understand is why someone would insist on a veto on a spouse's new beliefs or opinions. That seems unfair and frankly unlikely to work; marriage shouldn't be the thought police.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Ultimately that marriage ended in divorce after my spouse told me that Christ himself had appeared to her in a vision and told her to leave me and pursue a life of chastity. She moved out several days later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose the evidence suggests, strongly, that 'forsaking all others' is 'honoured more in the breech than in the observance'.

---

quote:

---

Ultimately that marriage ended in divorce after my spouse told me that Christ himself had appeared to her in a vision and told her to leave me and pursue a life of chastity. She moved out several days later.

I am now happily married to someone else.

I see this as a positive outcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose the evidence suggests, strongly, that 'forsaking all others' is 'honoured more in the breech than in the observance'.

---

What evidence exactly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Bartolomeo:

quote:

---

In similar fashion, if the marriage began with the premise of an intellectual atheist and an inactive Christian respecting each others' differences, well, any significant move away from the center of that is going to be disruptive, and it isn't fair (IMO) for one spouse to make such a change unilaterally and insist that the other just accept it.

---

What I can't understand is why someone would insist on a veto on a spouse's new beliefs or opinions. That seems unfair and frankly unlikely to work; marriage shouldn't be the thought police.

---

I think there's a line crossed when the new beliefs and opinions reject or trivialize the other spouse and their beliefs. The problem isn't "I believe in God," it's "people who don't believe what I believe are going straight to hell, and you, my dear, are first among them unless you repent."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Would someone please be kind enough to define "intellectual atheism" for me? It's not a modifier I've seen used before in this context and I suspect the distinction that springs to my mind (intellectual vs. popular) isn't the one intended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Would someone please be kind enough to define "intellectual atheism" for me? It's not a modifier I've seen used before in this context and I suspect the distinction that springs to my mind (intellectual vs. popular) isn't the one intended.

---

One definition would be a follower of scientism - as distinct from science. Scientism is a philosophy where you believe science is the only real source of knowledge, and anything outside of the laboratory should be dismissed as superstition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Would someone please be kind enough to define "intellectual atheism" for me? It's not a modifier I've seen used before in this context and I suspect the distinction that springs to my mind (intellectual vs. popular) isn't the one intended.

---

One definition would be a follower of scientism - as distinct from science. Scientism is a philosophy where you believe science is the only real source of knowledge, and anything outside of the laboratory should be dismissed as superstition.

---

Is that the same as e.g. logical positivism or indeed as scientific empiricism? Also does that imply scientism precludes theism or agnosticism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...although I'm still of the opinion that this thread is most likely an academic exercise rather than a real problem between two real people in a real marriage. I could be wrong, but I know where I'd put my money!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
That my personal definition of commitment includes something that could be poetically described as "Thou shalt have no Gods before me."?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...although I'm still of the opinion that this thread is most likely an academic exercise rather than a real problem between two real people in a real marriage. I could be wrong, but I know where I'd put my money!

---

Unfortunately if that were true then I, my wife and several of our friends would not be as upset as we all are. Although I suppose in one sense you could say ours was a marriage between two academics, we're real provided anything else is.

Can I ask what you find so incredible? That my personal definition of commitment includes something that could be poetically described as "Thou shalt have no Gods before me."?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
"No other gods before me"? That's a recipe for disaster. You can't insist on being #1. Relationships work when each person puts the other first, but you can't demand that - it has to be a gift.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Do you really want your spouse thinking of you as a "god"-- however you might define that??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Really, it's two reasons

1) Why would an unbeliever air out all his dirty laundry in a christian forum, where most of the people don't even speak the same language as him (metaphorically I mean)?

2) You write in a cool detached way as if it's happining to someone else, and you're the psychologist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Really, it's two reasons

1) Why would an unbeliever air out all his dirty laundry in a christian forum, where most of the people don't even speak the same language as him (metaphorically I mean)?

2) You write in a cool detached way as if it's happining to someone else, and you're the psychologist.

---

1) I'm not looking for validation here (that's what my friends give me) and enjoy polite disputation. Just like everyone else I think my laudry is cleaner than other peoples, plus I'm apparently learning a lot of new words for what other groups of people would call me. Although I agree that language is a problem. Practically, not just metaphorically. (E.g. when believers talk of a personal god it always puts me in mind of personal pizzas).
2) That's probably a side effect of my training (in hard science/mathematics, not medicine).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK, sorry but you wanted me to be frank. There's a third:

3) It sounds an awful lot like role playing: "Let's pretend I'm an atheist spouse whose wife has suddenly got religion, and doesn't know how to handle it."

You'd then study with fascination the sort of responses you got from various shades of christians. You'd poke a stick at them sometimes to provoke them into revealing how their thought processes worked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Would someone please be kind enough to define "intellectual atheism" for me? It's not a modifier I've seen used before in this context and I suspect the distinction that springs to my mind (intellectual vs. popular) isn't the one intended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
But there still isn't a veto. There is persuasion and compromise, and then things might work out. Or there is no persuasion. Then someone stays and is unhappy, or someone flounces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
I would define "intellectual atheism" as a personal conviction that belief in God (or multiple gods or some other higher power) is not only factually wrong but something that actively undermines the superior moral system that is purely a product of logic and reason....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Which begs the question, how does any sort of moral system (let alone one which is "superior") derive from logic and reason?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Which begs the question, how does any sort of moral system (let alone one which is "superior") derive from logic and reason?

---

If you're really interested in my personal opinions then:

i) No system of logic alone is going to derive a moral code or system of ethics (whether there is a difference between the two is another question).
ii) Given a couple of extra axioms (e.g. the Golden Rule) then, depending on the axioms, it's either possible or trivial, but being axiomatic these starting conditions are of course not in themselves logical. Indeed portions of many religious works consist of attempting to logically extend the axioms assumed provided by their higher power into a useful moral code.
iii) In this sense only truly rational philosophy of live is an absolute agnosticism (even as to whether life itself exists) that doesn't really provide any useful message as to what to do in any particular situation.
iv) No follower of a coherent philosophy of life ever believes it to be unreasonable.

---

Well... I did ask!
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
...but it sure doesn't sound much like "hard science/maths" to me!
 

---

Posted by E to the i pi (# 16762) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...but it sure doesn't sound much like "hard science/maths" to me!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...but it sure doesn't sound much like "hard science/maths" to me!

---

In that case you should really read up on eg. Euclidean geometry. It requires five axioms to be held true to be able to then logically construct most of what people innately hold to be true about shapes. Or you could try Russell's Principia Mathematica but that takes many tens of pages to reach 1+1=2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK - so it sounds like the supposed origins of religion/morals/ethics (which I would have thought of as a "soft" science) actually overlaps into "hard" science/maths, yes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK - so it sounds like the supposed origins of religion/morals/ethics (which I would have thought of as a "soft" science) actually overlaps into "hard" science/maths, yes?

---

I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Formal logic is certainly a prime mover in both philosophy and mathematics, although of course the context is slightly different. Previously the gap between philosopher and natural philosopher hasn't always been as large as is assumed today. Pythagoras combined a secret mystic school of mathematics with a religion based on beans. Or look at Aristotle, who seems to have had fans from both sides of the cultural divide, although both groups now see his opinions as outdated or wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not really making any point, just trying to establish a relationship between (a) your answer to how any sort of moral system derives from logic and reason, and (b) the subjects you read at university.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not really making any point, just trying to establish a relationship between (a) your answer to how any sort of moral system derives from logic and reason, and (b) the subjects you read at university.

---

Oh I see. In which case the connection is an understanding of the basic principles of formal logic from having read maths. I admit my later career in mathematics and geophysics has less innate connection.

Does this mean that you see moral systems as innately illogical then? That sounds frightening like the people who say "If it were true there is no God then there would be no reason for me not to kill you".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I've never heard anyone say that - but it has been suggested that such peoples' (atheists) motive for being good (or appearing to be good) might just be self serving. It has crossed my mind too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
To be fair, I'm not certain Christians' motives for doing good aren't ever self-serving. At least mine are sometimes. Or always.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I've never heard anyone say that - but it has been suggested that such peoples' (atheists) motive for being good (or appearing to be good) might just be self serving. It has crossed my mind too.

---

It seems to be a surprisingly common counterargument to the non-existence of gods used by the hard of thinking.

If you believe that good can only be done in the name of a higher power then of course by your definition atheists can never do good. Of course this then assumes that your version of truth is the single absolute which pretty much removes any possibility of dialogue.

Does this mean that you do think ethics are innately illogical, or that you think the question makes no sense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, convince me then - as an atheist what is your motive for being selfless and generous to people who will give you nothing in return?

---

quote:

---

Let's skip questions about ethics being logical/illogical for now and concentrate on the above question, yes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, convince me then - as an atheist what is your motive for being selfless and generous to people who will give you nothing in return?

---

I seek to convince you of nothing. My personal philosophy is that I can only reasonably expect others to act at or below the standard that I do myself. If I am to expect help uncalled for then I have also to be willing to provide it. Is that self-centred? Well it's motivation from the internal rather than the external, but I don't really see that as the same thing. Or just do it out of the blue to play with peoples minds.

quote:

---

Let's skip questions about ethics being logical/illogical for now and concentrate on the above question, yes?

---

That's hardly playing fair. Quid pro quo and all that.

---

You haven't answered my question - do I have to type it out again?

I'm going to bed now, but if you can give me an answer to what I asked you without evading or changing the question, then we can include "Quid pro quo and all that" in our next discussion. But for now, it's goodnight! You should get some sleep too - it can wait till tomorrow!
 

---

Posted by E to the i pi (# 16762) on :
 
I had understood your question to be "Why do you perform altruistic acts?" to which my answer was "Because if I don't act altruistically to others I can't expect them to act altruistically to me". If that wasn't your question then I apologise and can only ask you to restate it in another form.
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Marvin: if people on this thread have considered what their reaction would be if the couple in question had started out Christian but one of them decided to renounce their faith. Would the spouse who remains in the church be expected to just suck it up and deal, or would any unhappiness or discomfort on their part be seen as justified?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I've never heard anyone say that - but it has been suggested that such peoples' (atheists) motive for being good (or appearing to be good) might just be self serving. It has crossed my mind too.

---

It seems to be a surprisingly common counterargument to the non-existence of gods used by the hard of thinking.

If you believe that good can only be done in the name of a higher power then of course by your definition atheists can never do good. Of course this then assumes that your version of truth is the single absolute which pretty much removes any possibility of dialogue.

Does this mean that you do think ethics are innately illogical, or that you think the question makes no sense?

---

quote:

---

My personal philosophy is that I can only reasonably expect others to act at or below the standard that I do myself. If I am to expect help uncalled for then I have also to be willing to provide it. Is that self-centred?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, convince me then - as an atheist what is your motive for being selfless and generous to people who will give you nothing in return?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Just to summarise - we have only talked thus far of good works for reward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, convince me then - as an atheist what is your motive for being selfless and generous to people who will give you nothing in return?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
I fear here we've run into a place where the language of our philosophies don't translate to each other...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
I fear here we've run into a place where the language of our philosophies don't translate to each other...

---

Well, in the language of my philosophy, it's called "evading the question".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
[QUOTE]
I'd also like to note that my ethics are orthogonal to my theist position. It's perfectly possible to believe the Christian deities exist but not buy their morality, look at tabloid Satanism. Equally one could be a socially Christian atheist, accepting the morality but not the faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, in the language of my philosophy, it's called "evading the question".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would completely agree. Which makes our conversation here all the more puzzling, though, since I would think you have here the foundation for a good, productive marriage between two persons of different faiths, but hopefully common ethics & values.

---

While my wife was a fellow travelling "Christian agnostic" then yes there was, but my value system is such that I see commitment to false gods as coming out of my pool as it were.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
I think I'm getting it now.

As far as Jesus is concerned, selfless good works are akin to storing up "treasure in heaven", whereas the "rich fool" stored up treasure for himself in this world.

Anyway, that's (hopefully) set the cat amongst the pigeons. Anyway, I have to get some sleep now - catch y'all tomorrow!
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would completely agree. Which makes our conversation here all the more puzzling, though, since I would think you have here the foundation for a good, productive marriage between two persons of different faiths, but hopefully common ethics & values.

---

While my wife was a fellow travelling "Christian agnostic" then yes there was, but my value system is such that I see commitment to false gods as coming out of my pool as it were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, that pov seems contrary to the earlier statement I quoted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And, hypothetically, children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And, hypothetically, children?

---

If you mean the future fruit of my own loins as it were, then I've always seen them as a sort of very expensive, very time consuming joint DIY project. One of the key words being joint.

If you mean the existing children of a potential future spouse, then if she actually venerated her children then I don't think I'd get involved in the first place since she wouldn't be able or interested in the kind of relationship that I was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Since very small children are all-consuming, they tend to be practically venerated just in order to survive and thrive.

Well, at least you've learned something from all this: you seem to think that love is a limited resource and that you'd better get the lion's share in a relationship. And you are quite jealous, even to the extent of envying attention to "imaginary" people. Maybe you'll find someone who wants to be so possessed. They say there is someone for everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The point being that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, children pretty much always come first. And when they don't, there's usually some abusive dynamic going on. So, whether your spouse is a believer or atheist, if you have children, at some point you're going to come 2nd. To be honest, a distant 2nd. Oh, we'll still play lip service to the "you're first in my heart" thing, but it's really just empty rhetoric.

Which, again, is only a problem if you view love as a zero-sum game. Your wife isn't loving you less, her heart is expanding to include a greater love for children (or deity). Attention & time, of course, are zero-sum, which is where compromise and negotiation come in. But love is not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The point being that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, children pretty much always come first. And when they don't, there's usually some abusive dynamic going on. So, whether your spouse is a believer or atheist, if you have children, at some point you're going to come 2nd. To be honest, a distant 2nd. Oh, we'll still play lip service to the "you're first in my heart" thing, but it's really just empty rhetoric.

Which, again, is only a problem if you view love as a zero-sum game. Your wife isn't loving you less, her heart is expanding to include a greater love for children (or deity). Attention & time, of course, are zero-sum, which is where compromise and negotiation come in. But love is not.

---

I'm interested now, would you give the same advice to someone who's wife was having an affair?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

I am suggesting that the priority of God over spouse is more similar to the priority of children over spouse than it is to the relationship of a lover to spouse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

I am suggesting that the priority of God over spouse is more similar to the priority of children over spouse than it is to the relationship of a lover to spouse.

---

You're welcome to suggest it. Indeed you're welcome to believe it. I just happen not to agree. Different strokes for different folks and all.

Actually, I was more eager to have children than my wife was. Certainly I wouldn't get involved in a relationship with someone I wasn't willing to raise children with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Setting aside the "love for deity" thing, how will you respond when your hypothetical spouse prioritizes children above you?

And (coming back to what's set aside), to put the shoe on another foot, why is that more acceptable than prioritizing a deity?

---

quote:

---

How will my hypothetical spouse respond when I prioritise the child above her?

---

I imagine the way many parents do: with some shock at how thoroughly ten pounds of squall soaks up any stray love, time, and attention, and thoroughly messes with what you thought of as your life.
 

---

Posted by E to the i pi (# 16762) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I imagine the way many parents do: with some shock at how thoroughly ten pounds of squall soaks up any stray love, time, and attention, and thoroughly messes with what you thought of as your life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I imagine the way many parents do: with some shock at how thoroughly ten pounds of squall soaks up any stray love, time, and attention, and thoroughly messes with what you thought of as your life.

---

This is exactly why I'd like to raise kids, with a woman who respects me and I respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
I would define "intellectual atheism" as a personal conviction that belief in God (or multiple gods or some other higher power) is not only factually wrong but something that actively undermines the superior moral system that is purely a product of logic and reason....

---

Which begs the question, how does any sort of moral system (let alone one which is "superior") derive from logic and reason?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0