Dating an Agnostic?

[zengirl]

Do you have any studies to back up that claim?

 

Several. Here's one: Divorce Rate by Age or Religion | Divorce Rate 2011

 

Christians get their fair share of harrassment. In fact, I'm the one being harrassed in this thread by people who have a different belief system. I'm not going around attacking other people's faith, picking apart their religious literature, ridiculing them or calling them names.

 

You're not being harassed for your Christianity, but rather criticized and challenged for some of the more intolerant views you have expressed. And anyone who wants to is welcome to study biblical literature, just as we can study and discuss and question and consider any other religion. I'm not offended in the slightest when someone questions or learns about Buddhism; why are you offended when people consider, question, and study Christian teachings and the Bible. No one -- in this ENTIRE thread -- has come out and said anything was "wrong" with Christianity, though many people (including the OP) have noted that certain sections/factions of it hold practices they find intolerant and challenged those ideas and practices.

 

You see this as prejudism--I see it as following God's word, which all Christians are instructed to do. Do you really expect me to adopt a different view than what the Bible teaches, as a practicing Christian? That really isn't a realistic expectation. I mean, what is the point of adopting a faith if you are not going to believe in or adhere to its teachings?

 

The simple truth is that many Christians would not say the things you have said or believe the precise things you believe in this case. Do you really believe you speak for all Christians or for God? Christianity has evolved into many different forms throughout time. That's just a fact.

 

What I do not think helps the OP move forward, in the way she has stated she wants to, is to continually present the same side her parents likely take, which is what is causing her dissonance. Her BF and her are not having religious conflicts; she is having religious conflicts with fellow Catholics.

[Eve]

You think you can tell the OP whether she believes in God or not? OP is a practicing Catholic, by her own admission.

 

No one has any right to identify her as anything else. Nor does it make sense to me that you'd interpret her statement that she is fine with her children selecting their own faith or no faith to mean her belief is any less real to her.

 

The tension is within the faith itself. Tradition vs faith was a central element within the ministry of Christ, for which he was crucified!!!!!!! The question you should ask yourself is whether you care about this or not. Personally I would not expect you to understand/care about this so can ignore your view that the OP is being discriminated against. It is a central aspect of the faith not discrimination.

 

Tara - Yeah, I missed my holiday to post here! That has to be the answer, lol! Come on! Obviously I am enjoying the thread.

 

Lighten up woman..

 

Take care,

Eve x

[zengirl]

The tension is within the faith itself. Tradition vs faith was a central element within the ministry of Christ, for which he was crucified!!!!!!! The question you should ask yourself is whether you care about this or not. Personally I would not expect you to understand/care about this so can ignore your view that the OP is being discriminated against. It is a central aspect of the faith not discrimination.

 

What does this have to do with whether the OP is an agnostic?

 

I understand the issues of tradition vs. faith (Catholicism being very concerned with tradition and communal interpretations, though not fundamentalist readings, more so than many Christian religions that emphasize personal faith) but I do not think one can say the OP is agnostic in any sense of the word. Agnostics literally do not know if God exists and are very secure in their lack of knowledge, belief, or interaction with religious tradition. The OP is not an agnostic.

 

FTR, I do not believe the OP is being discriminated against---I believe her parents are prejudiced towards her BF and others who do not share their religion. That is a different statement in many, many ways.

 

I also think it's rather odd and rude that you think you can tell me what I care about or understand, just because I do not share your religious faith. I have engaged in plenty of Christian scholarship, despite the fact that I easily renounced any Christian beliefs I was taught. Because I have chosen another faith does not make my knowledge of history, canon, or critical thinking skills on the matter any less reliable.

Edited March 14, 2012 by zengirl

[FredRutherford]

 

I also think it's rather odd and rude that you think you can tell me what I care about or understand, just because I do not share your religious faith. I have engaged in plenty of Christian scholarship, despite the fact that I easily renounced any Christian beliefs I was taught. Because I have chosen another faith does not make my knowledge of history, canon, or critical thinking skills on the matter any less reliable.

 

Zen,

Like the other posters were with Kathy, you're getting too carried away here.

Eve is a Christian woman and likely knows what the OP is going through, which is entirely normal, IMO.

 

The man she dated and married, as she posted, wasn't a believer, like her.

So Eve is very similar to the OP.

 

Please stop these side-trips going after other posters over the smallest things.

 

If some poster recommends Christian counseling, don't jump on them.

Many Christians would prefer that to have a counselor that at least has that world view in common.

If another thinks the OP is wavering in her faith, that's her opinion.

[zengirl]

Zen,

Like the other posters were with Kathy, you're getting too carried away here.

Eve is a Christian woman and likely knows what the OP is going through, which is entirely normal, IMO.

 

The man she dated and married, as she posted, wasn't a believer, like her.

So Eve is very similar to the OP.

 

Please stop these side-trips going after other posters over the smallest things.

 

If some poster recommends Christian counseling, don't jump on them.

Many Christians would prefer that to have a counselor that at least has that world view in common.

If another thinks the OP is wavering in her faith, that's her opinion.

 

She did not say "wavering in her faith." She said agnostic, which has a specific definition. And I have every right to claim her opinion has little basis in the evidence we've been presented and the meaning of the word.

 

To me, this is not a small thing. It may be to you, but to me it is a huge thing, as is being told

 

FTR, I never said a "Christian counselor" was a bad idea---I stated that priests do not have training in counseling, which I know for a fact, and that the counselor the OP seeks does not necessarily need to be counseling. I have stated that the OP should find a counselor who will support her in her goals first, not necessarily the goals of the church, if those are at dissonance. That's my opinion. And I'm welcome to that one as well.

 

Which is not to say that I have any problem with Eve sharing her story or her opinions---I do question her ability to define the OP's religion (or lack thereof as "agnostic") or define what scholarship I should care about, simply because I don't choose to be Christian. Perhaps she can understand the OP, perhaps she cannot---I've no idea, and I've not commented on what she is capable of understanding. She attacked me in that way, but I didn't attack her.

 

ETA: I'm not going "after" anyone. I've nothing against Eve. I just think her post about the OP being agnostic was wrong and kind of rude, after the OP has clearly defined herself as a Catholic, but I do not think Eve is her post. I can easily distinguish a person from their statements.

Edited March 14, 2012 by zengirl

[denise_xo]

Just a quick bit of input- I'll have more to say later...

 

How am I to discern for myself whether or not faith is my number one priority? Kathy's concerns are exactly those of my parents- to a tee. I'm just hesitant to jump on that bandwagon because I'm not sure that I'd be heartbroken if my kids ended up well-adjusted but somewhat faithless. I also think that with the right support from my family (and his- he's descended from a long line of protestant missionaries. Very religious extended family....) they'd have less to worry about. Our kids would see all sides of the issue....

 

Is this a bad thing? I think it's going to depend on perspective.

 

My take would be that faith doesn't need to be be a competing priority relative other concerns. Faith in the true sense of the word should ENRICH your life, not make it poorer or make you negate the love of other people in your life.

 

I am married to someone who is from a different religion from me, but who in practice embraces three different religions. He does that because he sees their core to be the same. He has married someone who left the Christian church but who essentially shares the vast majority of his views on life, although I will typically not package it in religious terms and have no desire to put a religious label on myself.

 

When we first got together, my mother absolutely freaked out over his religious affiliation. I told her that I would go ahead with the marriage as planned, and if she had a problem with it, it was her problem. It was a difficult situation, but I refused to have someone's ignorance and prejudice decide my future. She eventually got over it and today she absolutely loves him. The key to getting over it was that she met him and saw what a wonderful human being he is. I have several other friends who have been in similar situations (i.e. families freaking out over cross-religious relationships), and in a lot of cases the families HAVE come around. Some of them have had to ponder it a bit longer than others. But at the end of the day, many of them have come to the conclusion that religious labels aren't worth losing a son or daughter, or future grandchildren. I'm not saying it's the case for everyone, though.

 

The idea that cross-religious marriage never work out and that they by default have a negative affect on children is simply empirically untrue. If you want to leave your relationship because of your family, that's one thing. But don't leave it over such ideas that simply are not rooted in reality.

 

I think what you outlined in your OP is pretty doable:

 

I, however, see the possibility for a very different ending. One in which bf and I raise several happy, well-adjusted, open-minded children. They’ll have their roots in the Catholic faith, which bf has already said he’s happy to support, even if it means weekly Masses, no meat on Fridays during lent, and religious artifacts in our home. They’ll have solid morals and values instilled in them by two educated parents who love them dearly. When they reach adulthood, they’ll have parents ready and willing to support them in whatever faith and career paths they choose.

 

As someone else said further up, this is essentially about how you want to relate to your family. Are you willing to allow them to set the terms for you to live your live, even when it runs counter to your own choices and your own perception of reality? That's the real choice here, from what I can tell.

[denise_xo]

Why do Buddhists, atheists and other faiths believe they should be counseling a Christian on a decision about faith and inter-faith marriage? The OP's question is something that should be presented to someone who shares the OPs faith, preferably a priest, to counsel her.

 

The OP has chosen to post her question on an open internet forum without religious affiliation. She is an adult and can present her question to anyone she likes.

[FredRutherford]

She did not say "wavering in her faith." She said agnostic, which has a specific definition. And I have every right to claim her opinion has little basis in the evidence we've been presented and the meaning of the word.

 

To me, this is not a small thing. It may be to you, but to me it is a huge thing, as is being told

 

FTR, I never said a "Christian counselor" was a bad idea---I stated that priests do not have training in counseling, which I know for a fact, and that the counselor the OP seeks does not necessarily need to be counseling. I have stated that the OP should find a counselor who will support her in her goals first, not necessarily the goals of the church, if those are at dissonance. That's my opinion. And I'm welcome to that one as well.

 

Which is not to say that I have any problem with Eve sharing her story or her opinions---I do question her ability to define the OP's religion (or lack thereof as "agnostic") or define what scholarship I should care about, simply because I don't choose to be Christian. Perhaps she can understand the OP, perhaps she cannot---I've no idea, and I've not commented on what she is capable of understanding. She attacked me in that way, but I didn't attack her.

 

ETA: I'm not going "after" anyone. I've nothing against Eve. I just think her post about the OP being agnostic was wrong and kind of rude, after the OP has clearly defined herself as a Catholic, but I do not think Eve is her post. I can easily distinguish a person from their statements.

 

Why is this so important to you?

And why post responses to the different women here posting their advice?

 

I get it not everyone shares the same religious views and KathyM points out an area the OP should consider.

As does Eve and you and the others.

 

Seems like the OP may be a "nominal" Catholic. Being that's her family and religious background, she appears to want to do "what's right."

 

She may be in a sexual relationship with her possible future husband, which is normal and understandable. So this is the time to bring up these issues.

 

I applaud her for taking the religious issue into consideration as KathyM is correct that Christians are warned not to marry non-believers.

Not that every Christian follows that command, but there are consequences.

 

If her religious views are important to her, she should address this issue with her fiance. If he mocks her faith, then that could lead to problems. Am speaking in general here as the OP posted he's not opposed to her views and like Quankanne said, it's good he goes to services with her and isn't "in her face" about his agnosticism.

 

And like OpenBook posted, God wants us all, even if we don't feel like we're "worthy."

 

This may be a stage the OP is going through.

It may also be good she marry a partner like him to help clarify her faith.

 

Many couples have mixed marriages and one may later become more into their faith. It can work but it can also have its pitfalls, as KathyM posted.

 

Maybe she should look into other denominations if she finds she disagrees with many things in her family church.

There are many former Catholics and Methodists and Lutherans and Baptists attending smaller community-based churches.

 

Her family is a whole other issue and may be a bigger one than the religious issue.

[TaraMaiden]

Why is this so important to you?

one might ask the same question...

 

And why post responses to the different women here posting their advice?

why not?

It's an open discussion forum. Members are neither forbidden nor discouraged from posting anywhere they choose... if something is profane, offensive, flaming, trolling rude, inappropriate off-topic and indefensible - there are ways of reporting that - but there is absolutely nothing which dictates sticking to communicating in one dimension, only with one other person alone - in fact, the guidelines discourage it....

 

I get it not everyone shares the same religious views and KathyM points out an area the OP should consider.

As does Eve and you and the others.

Hallelujah for that.

"Vive la difference!"

 

(. . .)

 

 

Her family is a whole other issue and may be a bigger one than the religious issue.

Her relationship with her family - particularly, it would seem, her mother - is the most fundamental issue and is closely affiliated with the religious issue.

The two are inseparable, it seems.

[KathyM]

Studies show that when a nonbeliever marries a Christian, the nonbeliever does not usually change their faith. That may happen sometimes, but in the majority of cases, that does not happen. To marry someone with the belief or hope that he will change or might change, is not a good plan. Marriage is hard enough without having to go into it with a major issue like this in the forefront. I don't think it's providing wise counsel to encourage her to enter into marriage with this major issue in the forefront.

 

Christians are instructed in the Bible to seek counsel from their church leaders and other Christians when making major decisions in life. To seek counsel about something this important on a Loveshack message board, and to let that be a guiding factor in such a major decision is not a good plan.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Originally Posted by KathyM

Why do Buddhists, atheists and other faiths believe they should be counseling a Christian on a decision about faith and inter-faith marriage? The OP's question is something that should be presented to someone who shares the OPs faith, preferably a priest, to counsel her.

 

As others have noted, because this is an open board. If she wanted biased perspective, she already has that of her family. Also, the question of "inter-faith" marriage could be pertinent to people of any belief system, not only Christians.

 

OP - follow your own path. I know several Catholic families where the religious life of the family was carried exclusively by the mother and the dad seemed completely removed. In two of the families, I know he converted prior to marriage, but never engaged at all. In another, I have no idea of the husband's background, and the 4th husband was raised in a totally traditional Irish Catholic family. He just calls himself "Catholic" and NEVER goes to church unless it's communion time or something like that; his wife is really into it. All of them seem fine from my view.

 

Diamonds&Rust, I really think you were brilliant on this thread.

 

KathyM, you undermine your own credibility when you refuse to take into account the known historical facts about the Bible, including that we have translations. The Bible was not dictated by God in English. Even well versed fundamentalists accept that, as far as I know (like my husband's father, who was a Baptist minister all his life).

[denise_xo]

Christians are instructed in the Bible to seek counsel from their church leaders and other Christians when making major decisions in life. To seek counsel about something this important on a Loveshack message board, and to let that be a guiding factor in such a major decision is not a good plan.

 

Well, the OP appears to be of a different opinion. She has said that she appreciates the input provided her and has come back with additional questions. Personally, when I seek guidance on something, I find it enriching to get a range of different views from people with different perspectives. It makes me more certain that I have considered all relevant aspects of an issue. If I only seek counsel from people with one particular way of looking at things, my capacity to go in depth into my issue might be more limited.

[TaraMaiden]

Studies show that when a nonbeliever marries a Christian, the nonbeliever does not usually change their faith. That may happen sometimes, but in the majority of cases, that does not happen. To marry someone with the belief or hope that he will change or might change, is not a good plan. Marriage is hard enough without having to go into it with a major issue like this in the forefront. I don't think it's providing wise counsel to encourage her to enter into marriage with this major issue in the forefront.

that's part of your continued advice, huh? ok... hold that thought....

Christians are instructed in the Bible to seek counsel from their church leaders and other Christians when making major decisions in life. To seek counsel about something this important on a Loveshack message board, and to let that be a guiding factor in such a major decision is not a good plan.

so you are dispensing counsel on a Loveshack message board, because....?

[zengirl]

Studies show that when a nonbeliever marries a Christian, the nonbeliever does not usually change their faith. That may happen sometimes, but in the majority of cases, that does not happen. To marry someone with the belief or hope that he will change or might change, is not a good plan.

 

Well, I agree with the bolded. However, I thought the OP made it fairly clear in her first post she had no thoughts of her BF changing his religious views significantly. She actually said:

 

For the most part, we share everything but our religious beliefs, which we happily discuss and mull over and think about. Neither one of us is changing, neither one expects the other to change. We've been together 5 months. Things are getting rather serious. Marriage and kids have been brought up in discussion and there's no end in sight to the relationship.

 

But one should never marry someone hoping they'll change! That's. . . just not a good idea, whether the thing you want them to change is religion or anything else.

[denise_xo]

This is what the OP wrote in her first post:

 

Neither one of us is changing, neither one expects the other to change.

 

ETA: sorry, cross posted with ZG.

[Diamonds&Rust]

And why post responses to the different women here posting their advice?

You're being selectively observant if you see the (irrelevant) fundamentalist Christian perspective as targeted or presented as "just something one should consider."

Seems like the OP may be a "nominal" Catholic.

That's kind of your opinion. It's like she's a theologically wounded gazelle and it's only a matter of time before fundamentalism strikes a fatal blow in one blood-filled, spiritual dance of predation?

 

You're equally as guilty of taking your narrow understanding of a religious text and aligning it with the divine. You warn of "consequences" for those who don't believe like you do. At best, this is blasphemy. At worst it's a psychotic delusion.

Studies show that when a nonbeliever marries a Christian, the nonbeliever does not usually change their faith. That may happen sometimes, but in the majority of cases, that does not happen. To marry someone with the belief or hope that he will change or might change, is not a good plan.

I'm fascinated that you continue to participate in this thread as though your faulty premises are accurate. The OP doesn't hope to change her fiance's faith or lack thereof. That's your hope. You want them both to become fundamentalists, evidently.

 

'

The catholic church teaches that at a specific moment during the mass, the wafers and the wine turn into the body and blood of Christ. it's an absolutely ridiculous premise to teach, and I've yet to meet any catholic who has truly, really honestly and sincerely gotten their heads around this teaching.

Huge yes and no situation with this one. There are certainly Catholics who understand Transubstantiation. It requires a flexible interpretation about what "reality" is, but no more or less than any of the other spiritual truths you are asked to embrace.

 

Unless you have a hardcore physicalist worldview, which granted is gaining philosophical ground, it's not that hard to understand at all. It may sound like a "ridiculous premise," but only if you expect the taste of transubstantiated bread and wine to change.

 

The tension is within the faith itself...

I'm confused because none of your explanations for why you're intent on calling a believer an agnostic make sense. There's no nuance there. The OP is a theist, not an agnostic. The word has a clear definition.

[zengirl]

Why is this so important to you?

 

The accuracy of words is one of my core values, so I pointed out the misuse of the word "agnostic". *Shrugs* As is pointing out intolerance and prejudice when I see it (I do not believe Eve is necessarily prejudiced or intolerant, necessarily, so that doesn't apply to my statements to Eve, though I do find it very odd that she feels she can determine whether or not I know/care about something).

 

And why post responses to the different women here posting their advice?

 

Because that's what a message board is -- posting to things that you have something to say about. I had something to say, so I said it. I do this in every thread I post in. By the same logic. . . Why are you posting responses to me? I totally don't get the question.

 

If her religious views are important to her, she should address this issue with her fiance. If he mocks her faith, then that could lead to problems. Am speaking in general here as the OP posted he's not opposed to her views and like Quankanne said, it's good he goes to services with her and isn't "in her face" about his agnosticism.

 

He doesn't mock her faith at all, and there's no signs he does or will. I don't really know how one can be an "in your face" agnostic. (I do know some "in your face atheists, who I dislike as much as "in your face" Christians or any other religion.) Agnosticism pretty much can't be "in your face" or the person would identify as an Atheist. Even if he didn't wish to go to services with her (which I agree is nice -- my agnostic hubby sometimes comes to the temple or Buddhist meetups with me, and I appreciate it), it wouldn't be "in your face."

 

The assumption that he could be doing anything wrong or mistreating her faith does not seem to stem from anything the OP has said, which is that her family is causing dissonance because of his religion and not that the religious differences between them are causing any dissonance. She clarified this for a reason, I assume.

 

And like OpenBook posted, God wants us all, even if we don't feel like we're "worthy."

 

What does this have to do with anything I've said?

Edited March 14, 2012 by zengirl

[TaraMaiden]

Transubstantiation... still can't get my head round it.....

 

Thanks for mentioning it.....

[zengirl]

Huge yes and no situation with this one. There are certainly Catholics who understand Transubstantiation. It requires a flexible interpretation about what "reality" is, but no more or less than any of the other spiritual truths you are asked to embrace.

 

Unless you have a hardcore physicalist worldview, which granted is gaining philosophical ground, it's not that hard to understand at all. It may sound like a "ridiculous premise," but only if you expect the taste of transubstantiated bread and wine to change.

 

FWIW, this was not one of the teachings of the Catholic church that I found confusing, so I fully believe some Catholics can understand it and many do (many also will admit they do not and rather just don't think about it much, true). Transubstantiation makes total sense to me, even as a Buddhist. I don't necessarily 'believe' in that specific example (because to have any meaning, it means believing in Christianity), but the idea of things changing at a specific moment and becoming something new and 'holy' has always made total sense to me.

 

And that was always my favorite part of Catholic Mass.

 

Anyway, that was a great summary, D&R. I agree with MC that you've been very thoughtful and thought-provoking in this thread. If the rumors are true and you aren't a practicing Catholic ( ), you are at the very least extremely well-informed (much more than myself certainly) and thoughtful on the subject.

[Eve]

What does this have to do with whether the OP is an agnostic?

 

 

Agnostic to me means noncommittal. I would not automatically think of a person who says that they are agnostic as you describe, at all. I see it more fluidly. Further I would say that a person can be in a period of agnosticism about certain aspects of belief without it being regarded as something exhaustive. So I just thought this was one of those cases where tradition is to be used as a shelter for child rearing but has little to do with the faith... or it could be that this is just a branching out for the OP to redefine her faith. Don't know, that is for the OP to tell.

 

In some communities tradition trumps faith. Usually this is to do with money making or position etc. Same as in Christs day and for this He came to be our guide.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[zengirl]

Agnostic to me means noncommittal. I would not automatically think of a person who says that they are agnostic as you describe, at all. I see it more fluidly. Further I would say that a person can be in a period of agnosticism about certain aspects of belief without it being regarded as something exhaustive. So I just thought this was one of those cases where tradition is to be used as a shelter for child rearing but has little to do with the faith... or it could be that this is just a branching out for the OP to redefine her faith. Don't know, that is for the OP to tell.

 

In some communities tradition trumps faith. Usually this is to do with money making or position etc. Same as in Christs day and for this He came to be our guide.

 

Take care,

Eve x

 

That is not what the word means, however. At the very farthest of the spectrum, even with agnostic theists, it still requires that the person does not claim God as a personal belief or practice a particular religion; generally agnostic theism does not even allow you to claim there is one particular God. Therefore, you couldn't be a practicing Catholic at the level the OP has described and be an agnostic, of any kind, according to any real definition of the word.

 

Being noncommittal to a particular religion is not being agnostic. It just isn't. I don't, personally, see much evidence that the OP is noncommittal to her religion. She questions some of the beliefs and actions of the church, but many Catholics do that. However, as you say, that's for her to say.

Edited March 14, 2012 by zengirl

[Eve]

That is not what the word means, however. At the very farthest of the spectrum, even with agnostic theists, it still requires that the person does not claim God as a personal belief or practice a particular religion; generally agnostic theism does not even allow you to claim there is one particular God. Therefore, you couldn't be a practicing Catholic at the level the OP has described and be an agnostic, of any kind, according to any real definition of the word.

 

Being noncommittal to a particular religion is not being agnostic. It just isn't. I don't, personally, see much evidence that the OP is noncommittal to her religion. She questions some of the beliefs and actions of the church, but many Catholics do that. However, as you say, that's for her to say.

 

Ok. In practical terms I don't see agnosticism as an end state, such as other beliefs. Never have.

 

*Shrugs*

 

The OP stating that she would not be bothered about her children being faithless is pretty big in my mind.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[zengirl]

Ok. In practical terms I don't see agnosticism as an end state, such as other beliefs. Never have.

 

*Shrugs*

 

The OP stating that she would not be bothered about her children being faithless is pretty big in my mind.

 

Take care,

Eve x

 

It is not big in my mind, and I'm not agnostic. Granted, I don't currently plan to have children now that I'm married (we do plan to foster, someday, hopefully, as I've always wanted to do that, as has hubby), but when I considered it prior, I always wanted my children to choose for themselves, whether it was atheism or Catholicism or anything else. I may not be Catholic, but I have a very strong faith, so I don't see the notion that having a strong, personal faith and being okay with children who don't see eye to eye are opposed. My mother also has a strong faith and cites Jesus frequently, though never condescendingly, and she has been fine with me exploring and finding my own faith. I believe she'd be fine if I were Atheist as well. To me, that's a part of tolerance, not belief.

 

Also, I think it's kind of odd (perhaps arrogant? Why is any other belief more entitled to be an end state?) to think agnosticism cannot be an end state and a lifelong belief system. I question that belief. How would you feel if someone insisted that Christianity was not an end state?

 

ETA: I'm really not truing to be rude about the last bit, but I do think it's kind of wrong to consider someone's beliefs -- even if their belief is that it cannot be known -- as a phase. Especially since agnosticism is only growing as we progress towards the future. I just would never tell an agnostic that I didn't value or respect their belief system as an end state, and I find that kind of strange to do.

Edited March 14, 2012 by zengirl

[Eve]

It is not big in my mind, and I'm not agnostic. Granted, I don't currently plan to have children now that I'm married (we do plan to foster, someday, hopefully, as I've always wanted to do that, as has hubby), but when I considered it prior, I always wanted my children to choose for themselves, whether it was atheism or Catholicism or anything else. I may not be Catholic, but I have a very strong faith, so I don't see the notion that having a strong, personal faith and being okay with children who don't see eye to eye are opposed. My mother also has a strong faith and cites Jesus frequently, though never condescendingly, and she has been fine with me exploring and finding my own faith. I believe she'd be fine if I were Atheist as well. To me, that's a part of tolerance, not belief.

 

Also, I think it's kind of odd (perhaps arrogant? Why is any other belief more entitled to be an end state?) to think agnosticism cannot be an end state and a lifelong belief system. I question that belief. How would you feel if someone insisted that Christianity was not an end state?

 

ETA: I'm really not truing to be rude about the last bit, but I do think it's kind of wrong to consider someone's beliefs -- even if their belief is that it cannot be known -- as a phase. Especially since agnosticism is only growing as we progress towards the future. I just would never tell an agnostic that I didn't value or respect their belief system as an end state, and I find that kind of strange to do.

 

It all depends on whether a person views secular life as being the same as a life of faith or not. Methinks that that is the crux of everything.

 

A million words can be written but that is the real information to be assessed.

 

 

Take care,

Eve x

[Diamonds&Rust]

Also, I think it's kind of odd (perhaps arrogant? Why is any other belief more entitled to be an end state?) to think agnosticism cannot be an end state and a lifelong belief system. I question that belief.

Hell, I question this talk about belief at all when it comes to a word's definition. The dictionary is not a work of faith.

 

It doesn't surprise me that certain Christians would see an agnostic as an undecided potential Christian, but that's not what the word means period.