When is it OK to ask a RW to change her religion for you

[Jazzyclassy]

Punishment from whom? God?

Yes from God

Anything what happens in the world is done by the will of God for this or that reason, that is my point of view   I am not imposing my belief to anyone, am just expressing my opinion,

Btw those people who claim to be atheist or non believers , I wonder why are you ever participating in this topic? Topic sais: when it is Ok to ask a RW to change her religion! so why would you care in what she believes , what religion your woman has , I bet you do not care , so what is the point of making other people laugh at you , you put yourself in such a ridiculous position  like Sort did , I personally even was shocked that a person who does believe in theory of Darvin's  can express such narrow minded views and made himself a clown in this thread

Better do not post at all in this thread if the only thing you come across at is mocking at those people who are religious. I find it simply incorrect.

[BillyB]

Wow, 7 pages in less than two days.

I haven't read everything but here's my opinion. I consider myself Christian but I'm flexible. Eduard, your client has the right to cut through the bull and ask his question so it saves both him and the ladies he's writing to time if she can't agree to his request that she change her denomination if she is to pursue a relationship with him. His request is tacky but is needed if that is what he needs. It would be more easier for him to ask each lady what denomination they belong to and drop the lady if she is not what he's looking for but how many Christian RW belong outside of Russian Orthodox? Not many so he's forced to find a woman outside his denomination if he pursues a RW.

Your client also needs to ask himself if he does find a woman who'd change her denomination/religion for him, will he look down at her for being so weak? After all, he doesn't want to be "weak" for changing his denomination for her.

[Shadow]

I personally even was shocked that a person who does believe in theory of Darvin's  can express such narrow minded views and made himself a clown in this thread

Jazzy, being an atheist does not require believing in the theory of Darwin, and vice versa.
If you label people who accept evolution as theory as atheist, you just added the Pope to this list. 

[Jazzyclassy]

Jazzy, being an atheist does not require believing in the theory of Darwin, and vice versa.
If you label people who accept evolution as theory as atheist, you just added the Pope to this list. 

Oi Shadow please do not start this song again of misinterpreting what I have said I told that if a person believes in Darwin's theory and  is talking such nonsense like Sort does , that means even this theory can not give him any idea about this matter.

Darwin's theory it is scientific point of view , I accept it and am glad it exists I do not mind this theory at all, but I believe in God! not in monkeys

I  hope you get it now , am so sick of people just puting wrong words into this or that mouth

[2tallbill]

Since we are in this debate about God and all that.
Can any of you believers please tell me,,"Where God comes from?"
He/She must come from some place or was He/She just "Farted" out from an alian ass?

There are too many things in life and nature that are not capable of being explained or even fathomed.
Lets not talk about God for a moment.

How far does the universe extend? for ever? how is this, what is that? Where does it end? does it end?
When did it begin? what was before that?

We can't really fathom forever, it's a concept, But how can we really explain it? What happened before forever?
Why have we never been able to mix together chemicals and reproduce anything living? Even the simplest thing?
Which we can tell right down to the atoms of it's composition.

I am saying that it's the same with God. He always existed (this is my belief) How can this be? I am telling you that
nobody can fathom it. Just like nobody can really fathom forever, in distance or time. If we came from Monkeys or apes then why are they still here?

This is way off topic from the original thread. But you asked a question and this is my attempt at answering my belief about it.

By the way my questions were not meant to be answered. I asked them to compare something that is taught in science and something taught by many religions. The questions were not intended to belittle your beliefs (or lack of) they were asked to try to explain mine.

Just my two kopecks,

Bill

[AnastassiaAsh]

Your client also needs to ask himself if he does find a woman who'd change her denomination/religion for him, will he look down at her for being so weak? After all, he doesn't want to be "weak" for changing his denomination for her.

Yep, exactly! 

For very scientific minds and those who do not believe I recommend starting with this book "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel.

[BC]

The desire to believe in 'Something(s)' is probably hardwired somewhere in the the junk DNA we all carry along with other instincts created since something resembling a man and woman first walked the earth that could support such thought.  Faced with imminent death, even our primate ancestors may have thought something like 'OMG'.. A few survived and passed on their last thoughts. There have been so many forms of exhibiting the desire to believe that I accept them all as being true, thus had absolutely no problem converting my agnostic soul to RO, not out of necessity but desire.

Others may find it much more difficult.  That one would insist on a partner changing belief as a pre-requisite for marriage, is IMHO perverse.  True desire and not demand should be the driver.

[Blues Fairy]

from  Merriam-Webster online(bold per me)

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

As there are also Atheist institutions (google comes up with 375,000 hits for "atheist organizations"), it could also be considered an organized religion.

You missed the adjective: religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.  Atheism still does not qualify.  Dictionary gives clear definition of religion (and all its derivative words) as a service or worship of God or the supernatural.  

Of course the word "religion" can be used in a metaphoric sense, but that's not applicable to this discussion, unless the initial statement "Atheism is a religion" was a metaphoric expression.  Even as a metaphor, however, it is not true for all people.    

[Blues Fairy]

Belief in God requires faith.  Not believing requires even more faith.

Not true.  All it requires is absence of need to believe in something and of phsychological discomfort at the fact that not all mysteries of this world have yet been explained by scientific research. 

The desire to believe in 'Something(s)' is probably hardwired somewhere in the the junk DNA we all carry along with other instincts

Again, not for all.  Some people are quite happy to live without any kind of faith "permeating all their life".  A little critical thinking and a little curiosity is all it takes, no hard-wiring necessary. 

[myrddin]

Wow, 7 pages in less than two days.

It seems people get worked up about issues of religion 

Your client also needs to ask himself if he does find a woman who'd change her denomination/religion for him, will he look down at her for being so weak? After all, he doesn't want to be "weak" for changing his denomination for her.

BillyB sums this up very well.  You simply can't downplay belief (or non-belief!) issues or delay their discussion, as I think many people do.  It's not fair to you or to her.
I count many devout believers among my friends, but we are talking about seeking a lifelong partner to build a family.

For very scientific minds and those who do not believe I recommend starting with this book "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel.

For those interested, I also suggest reading this book.

And, solely in the interest of fairness , here is one generally cogent response:

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/strobel_cfac.htm

[SANDRO43]

For very scientific minds and those who do not believe I recommend starting with this book "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel.

Scientific minds and non-believers usually don't try to convert others to their viewpoints .

[Gator]

Scientific minds and non-believers usually don't try to convert others to their viewpoints

Glad you said "usually".

[SANDRO43]

Glad you said "usually".

I'm "usually" averse to making absolute statements, particularly on matters dealing with human behaviour  .

[deccie]

Not true.  All it requires is absence of need to believe in something and of phsychological discomfort at the fact that not all mysteries of this world have yet been explained by scientific research. 

Blues Fairy, an atheist who states "God  does not exist" requires as much faith as someone who is a believer. since their is no scientific test to "prove"their statement.

Someone who falls in the category of not having a "need" as such would more likely fall in the category of an agnostic, otherwise known as a "fence sitter"  . Atheism and Agnosticism are very different world views.

An Atheist would say "God does not exist" whereas an agnostic would say "I do not know if there is or is not a God"

Since I am Agnostic myself, my own statement along these lines would tend to be "I don't pretend to understand anything to do with the nature of a God. It is outside my understanding."

[goforit]

Yeah, it's all in the meaning of devout, which different people have different meanings for.   I read it as "serious."    And even that word has degrees of meaning.  That is why I suggested that one should not be overly concerned about the girl's faith too soon.

We have to be careful here.  Politics and Religion are dangerous topics to discuss :-)  LOL

I have found that when people look to God and not to religion, it all works out.  And when a couple both look at God, they grow closer together.Marina and I both "converted" and attend a non-denominational church.  She likes it a lot.
Readers can check out my blog here for more info.

Yes people have different meanings of devout, but the two communions in question (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) have certain bottom line behaviours that they consider to reflect someone who is devout, and don't leave the matter up to personal opinion.

They, Orthodox especially, don't have such an individualistic approach to the faith as most Protestants do, and if someone who says they are Orthodox aren't doing certain things, the Church would not see them as devout, no matter what they said personally. Orthodoxy does not draw such a sharp distinction between God and religion because for Orthodox the Church is the body of Christ, which has a real manifestation and is not just some invisible entity.

But even from a Protestant perspective one can argue that a devout adherent of Presbyterianism, for example, is someone who holds steadfastly to the pillars of the Presbyterian tradition. Same goes for a Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, whathaveyou. They believe their tradition best reflects the faith as God wants it expressed. If not why call yourself a devout __________?(fill in the blank).

If you have a serious faith in God but that belief does not mirror any tradition I have already mentioned or any of the other 22,000+ Protestant denominations, seems to me it would be best to just call yourself a devout or serious Christian. Once you qualify it with a description like Catholic, Orthodox, etc, then that introduces elements into the definition that might not otherwise be there.

So practically speaking "looking to God" is going to have certain ramifications for a devout Orthodox person which are different for a devout Reformed Baptist, for example. For one the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have specific criteria for a spouse, criteria that a devout Orthodox or Catholic Christian, and not just a devout Christian, is going to take seriously. That seriousness is going to clash, not only among devout Orthodox and devout Catholic, but devout anyone else.

Orthodox Christians who are serious about Orthodoxy are going to follow the fasts (which amounts to about half the year in Orthodoxy and is almost unthinkable to the western mindset), go to confession on a regular basis, receive the Eucharist on a regular basis, reverence the icons, etc.

Christians who are serious Reformed Baptists on the other hand are going to choke on all those practices, thinking they amount to legalism and idolatry. They will do so because in "looking to God" that they think these matters are a great compromise of the Christian faith which is best expressed in their tradition.

Even someone who is non-denominational is going to flinch at the perceived rigidity of Orthodoxy because their idea of "looking to God" is that these things shouldn't matter as they are only "religion", which is in and of itself is as distinct a faith outlook as anyone else who professes to be Christian.

So, IMO, best to get this out up front, especially if my experience is a reflection of how things are in the FSU, where essentially most women are Orthodox by baptism, not by conviction, and traditional Christian faith of any sort doesn't play a strong role in their life. If she is not on the same page, you both can move on. If she is, then perhaps there is something to build on.

[SANDRO43]

... whereas an agnostic would say "I do not know if there is or is not a God". Since I am Agnostic myself, my own statement along these lines would tend to be "I don't pretend to understand anything to do with the nature of a God. It is outside my understanding."

IMO, your second statement is more to the point. Rather than "I do not know if there is or is not a God", "I cannot know if there is a God or not", given by definition the magnitude of the problem .

[Blues Fairy]

Blues Fairy, an atheist who states "God does not exist" requires as much faith as someone who is a believer. since their is no scientific test to "prove" their statement.

An Atheist would say "God does not exist" whereas an agnostic would say "I do not know if there is or is not a God"

It requires no faith but the simple Occam's rule: do not invoke unnecessary entities.  I say: based on the available evidence, I am pretty sure God does not exist.  I need not doubt this conclusion unless I am presented with new convincing evidence contrary to it.  In that case, I'll be willing to reconsider, provided the evidence is convincing enough. 

In the same way, I do not need much "faith" to claim that mermaids do not exist.  However, If I am presented with a live mermaid, or at least a well-preserved skeleton of such, I'll be happy to reconsider. 

So what does that make me?

[goforit]

Again, not for all.  Some people are quite happy to live without any kind of faith "permeating all their life".  A little critical thinking and a little curiosity is all it takes, no hard-wiring necessary. 

I hate to acknowledge this aspect of the thread, since it goes well astray of what Eduard was asking, but atheists live by faith all the time and it is easily demonstrated by a little critical thinking.

[deccie]

It requires no faith but the simple Occam's rule: do not invoke unnecessary entities.  I say: based on the available evidence, I am pretty sure God does not exist.  I need not doubt this conclusion unless I am presented with new convincing evidence contrary to it.  In that case, I'll be willing to reconsider, provided the evidence is convincing enough. 

I'd still put that person in the agnostic category based on the above statement.
It seems like fence sitting to me.

In the same way, I do not need much "faith" to claim that mermaids do not exist.  However, If I am presented with a live mermaid, or at least a well-preserved skeleton of such, I'll be happy to reconsider. 

Since Mermaids seem to have only affected the world view of sailors at sea for long periods of time I wouldn't quite put them into the same category as a discussion on the nature of God. 

[goforit]

It requires no faith but the simple Occam's rule: do not invoke unnecessary entities.  I say: based on the available evidence, I am pretty sure God does not exist.  I need not doubt this conclusion unless I am presented with new convincing evidence contrary to it.  In that case, I'll be willing to reconsider, provided the evidence is convincing enough. 

In the same way, I do not need much "faith" to claim that mermaids do not exist.  However, If I am presented with a live mermaid, or at least a well-preserved skeleton of such, I'll be happy to reconsider. 

So what does that make me?

Someone that may be missing some aspects of the nature of belief and faith?

When Christ tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus, and the rich man during the story begs Father Abraham to send someone from the dead so that his brothers would not share the same fate he does, Father Abraham responds by saying, "They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear him." When the rich man insists by asking Father Abraham to send someone from the dead, the response is, "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." In other words direct evidence is rarely the issue when it comes to belief verses unbelief.

This can be easily demonstrated by how two people might react to seeing a man walking on water. The devout Christian would exclaim, "A miracle!" An atheist would muse, "that is an interesting phenomenon for which one day I'm sure we will have an adequate explanation."

Its not the facts or evidence that are in dispute, but the interpretative grid that is brought to bear on those facts. Thats why questions of this nature are rarely resolved with a bald appeal to facts or evidence. No, the issue lies much deeper than that.

[deccie]

Someone that may be missing some aspects of the nature of belief and faith?

When Christ tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus, and the rich man during the story begs Father Abraham to send someone from the dead so that his brothers would not share the same fate he does, Father Abraham responds by saying, "They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear him." When the rich man insists by asking Father Abraham to send someone from the dead, the response is, "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." In other words direct evidence is rarely the issue when it comes to belief verses unbelief.

This can be easily demonstrated by how two people might react to seeing a man walking on water. The devout Christian would exclaim, "A miracle!" An atheist would muse, "that is an interesting phenomenon for which one day I'm sure we will have an adequate explanation."

Its not the facts or evidence that are in dispute, but the interpretative grid that is brought to bear on those facts. Thats why questions of this nature are rarely resolved with a bald appeal to facts or evidence. No, the issue lies much deeper than that.

Isn't that part of the problem, that those of faith can get easily mislead by those more unscruitable or those with nefarious purposes? If one is also ignorant then what IS part of the rational world can easily get explained by such "miracles".

[Sort]

There are too many things in life and nature that are not capable of being explained or even fathomed.
Lets not talk about God for a moment.

How far does the universe extend? for ever? how is this, what is that? Where does it end? does it end?
When did it begin? what was before that?

We can't really fathom forever, it's a concept, But how can we really explain it? What happened before forever?
Why have we never been able to mix together chemicals and reproduce anything living? Even the simplest thing?
Which we can tell right down to the atoms of it's composition.

I am saying that it's the same with God. He always existed (this is my belief) How can this be? I am telling you that
nobody can fathom it. Just like nobody can really fathom forever, in distance or time. If we came from Monkeys or apes then why are they still here?

This is way off topic from the original thread. But you asked a question and this is my attempt at answering my belief about it.

By the way my questions were not meant to be answered. I asked them to compare something that is taught in science and something taught by many religions. The questions were not intended to belittle your beliefs (or lack of) they were asked to try to explain mine.

Just my two kopecks,

Bill

Thanx Bill for the lines.
I am not mocking or trying to make anyone that is a believer to look silly like Jazzy say that i do.
when i first saw the thread i wonder what kind of person demamnds that his future wife MUST convert to HIS religion when infact there religion is the same.

The lines in my signature means that i have no objections about god or any other big chief.
It's the people that can't understand and will not accept that not all follow or a re believers.
when i see a beautiful church i do stop and walk in to it.
I am not a vampire or the devils son.
I love the achritechture and the paintings and can walk and look and feel very welcome even that i don't pray.

Some people should recognise these Angels

[SANDRO43]

In the same way, I do not need much "faith" to claim that mermaids do not exist.  However, If I am presented with a live mermaid, or at least a well-preserved skeleton of such, I'll be happy to reconsider. 

So what does that make me?

Open-minded .

[BC]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=407134&in_page_id=1811

Although the article states survival is rare, I can imagine what sailors would report back home..

[deccie]

Darwin's theory it is scientific point of view , I accept it and am glad it exists I do not mind this theory at all, but I believe in God! not in monkeys

Why are the two contradictory for you Jazzy?