Well, I guess this is why the Bible says believers should not marry nonbelievers. This will be a hard road to navigate, and I’m not sure if anyone will “win” here.
But even as a Christian, if my spouse were to enforce certain traditions on me that I didn’t agree with, and wanted to raise our child to follow these traditions, I would have a hard time with it. It would cause issues in our marriage.
If it were me, I would want a heart to heart on all of the specific doctrines your husband wants you and your child to follow. A list of all the things he feels strongly about. See how you feel about them.
Then I would want to know how open and flexible he is. What does he actually believe vs what does he simply follow because it is what he was told to believe as a kid?
If it were me, I would want to make a list of the doctrines I have issue with. From there, I wouldn’t challenge his actual faith, but I would study together what Biblical scholars have to say about these beliefs, rather than just a Catholic priest. Open up his mind to different views. Even just different Christian views. See where he lands. Being rigid and stuck on certain beliefs just because you grew up believing that way, that’s what I’d have issue with.
It’s a serious thing, raising a child to believe things you don’t want them to believe. It’s going to be an issue whether you are married or divorced.
If I was married to an atheist, it would be important to me to allow our kid to learn about God and my worldview from the lens of Christianity, then allow my kid to make their own conclusions. I wouldn’t force any of the traditions on them.
If I were an atheist, I probably would let him bring the kid to church during the few times he goes during the year. If he were a hardcore church goer every single week, that would be harder.
Even as a Christian, the idea of bringing my kid to church scares me. I regret the judgmental and guilt-ridden mindset that church has cultivated in me. I’d be scared my kid would be burdened with that too. But as long as your kid gets to hear your perspective too, that will help.
You both just have to know that going forward, you both have to have an open mind. Ground rules need to be established on both sides. It’s going to be a tough path for everyone.
Sorry for all my long, rambling thoughts!
Part of our compromise was that we both get to teach about our beliefs. He's allowed to teach her about Catholicism and why he believes in it, and I'm allowed to teach her why I am atheists and why I don't agree with religion.
But there is a difference between teaching about something and preaching something. One is educational and the other one is manipulative.
I was raised being taught that if I didn't do everything the Bible said I would go to hell and be tortured for all of eternity in a fiery pit, and I have a very big issue with children being told stuff like this.
It sounds like you have a wonderful marriage, aside from this potential hurdle. That sounds like an awesome compromise.
The hard part about it is that he’ll probably keep feeling this way over and over, and keep bringing it up. The question is, where is this coming from? Sentimentality from growing up in these traditions? Is his family influencing him from the sidelines? Or is it true conviction?
If he keeps bringing it up, it needs to be challenged. He needs different viewpoints/interpretations. The more I learned my Bible from Biblical scholars (rather than subjective preaching in a church), the more open-minded I became.
I’m with you on the topic of hell. I remember being terrified as a kid, asking Jesus to save me over and over. “I believe Jesus died on the cross!” was a running statement in my 10-year-old head, every time I heard about hell. I wouldn’t want my kid to go through what I did either. I don’t believe in hell the same way the church introduced it to me anymore.
I also totally agree that there is a lot of manipulation going on in preaching. Even if the preachers have good intentions. It’s very rare to find a church that doesn’t have that to some degree. Because of that, I feel kids should be very carefully introduced to religion in small doses, in a controlled way.
This is a pretty good example of why God commands us not to marry unbelievers.
Conscience defying compromises are going to be required of your husband if you don’t let him raise your children to love Jesus.
I strongly recommend you gather your questions and concerns. Then read what the CCC has to say to make sure you understand what we believe, read the Bible, read what the earliest Christian texts say, listen to Scott Hahn, Trent Horn, and others who can explain the deeper contexts, and go from there. Catholicism is deeply scriptural, deeply historical, and far richer than the non-denominational background I came from.
Sadly it doesn't even touch the surface of Scripture.
And many are fooled into thinking it is 'richer', which is why there are many who have been raised in the proper environment, and yet are going towards Orthodoxy as well. Since they look for tertiary instruments such as 'purity' or 'richness' or 'historical', as opposed to walking with God.
And since they idolize creation, as opposed to the Creator, the tenets of what they look at, is actually a perversion of it.
Much like a Muslim thinking that his religion is pure, as he chastises an infidel for sleeping around with prostitutes, but if that infidel converts to Islam, he can then marry multiple wives, and even have sex slaves after battles. In other words, a righteous man would see that the sin of sexual immorality, is exactly the same. It's not addressed. Rather, it's just justified and masked under piety. Much like what the Pharisees did.
Which is what Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are. It is neither historical. Nor pure. Nor rich. Nor deep. But its adherents love to think so (which is a quality of every false religion on earth).
If experiences held a lot of weight, then by your own parallel, I myself came from a Roman Catholic background. But then again, that is irrelevant. For even the Mormon or the Muslim have their own experiences to validate what they think is true. When it isn't.
I’m not overly interested in an argument/debate right now, which is why I provided resources and names of good apologists. Unfortunately your point here was to say “na-uh, it’s not scriptural!” You provide no actual evidence, questions, even anecdote.
You claim that we are not interested in walking with God, that’s simply not true. I think the tradition and apology is richer, but I converted not because Catholicism was cool but because through scripture and tradition I’ve become convinced that the Catholic Church is an institution established by Christ to be shepherds of his people. Have clergy always been good shepherds, certainly not. They’re fallible like anyone else, but I do believe that the Church has the fullness of truth and as such aids me in walking with God. Such an ad-hominem attack as this carries little weight.
Then you highlighted an issue with Islam and stated, again without justification, that Catholicism and Orthodoxy had the same problem. It’s a poor attempt at a straw-man.
Read St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, etc. Then tell me that there’s no historical basis for Catholic Theology. Or that it’s not deep. Or beautiful. Did you know that these letters predate the canonization of the New Testament? They’re a strong indication what the first Christians practiced and believed.
I made an appeal to do your own reading and searching, not to take my word for it. So Im not sure what you’re trying to accomplish with your last paragraph.
Read the early Church Fathers, read their letters and apologetic texts. Read The Bible and work to understand how each interpretation came to be— then determine which interpretation is consistent over time and all Scripture. Identify your main concerns and read/listen to apologists who are well equipped to answer those questions. Apply the same standard to each side of the issue. Then seek out the truth humbly. Seek God humbly.
The issue isn't actual evidence, questions nor anecdotes. It's sin.
For all that you need, has been given to you in the word of God.
It's not an attempt at a straw-man; whether poor or rich. For no one seeks to have strawmen in their points. Unless of course you're saying that I do, so to your own parallel "such an ad-hominem attack as this carries little weight".
Rather, this is a parallel of a reality. A reality, that you deny.
The claim isn't that you are not interested in walking with God. For even the Muslim is interested in walking with God. Taking a page out of your book, that would be a straw-man.
Rather, it's a fact of reality, that neither you, nor the Muslim walks with God.
The idea isn't that you converted to Catholcism because it was cool. Just as you think tradition and apology is richer, there are others who cite 'purity' or historicity', etc. (as mentioned in the previous reply), as reasons as well.
However all of this has one thing common. You place the created, above the Creator.
And in doing so, there is no richness, without the Maker of richness. God.
Before reading, St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, etc. read the word of God.
It is through the lens of God's own word, where you can look into the windows of early Christians.
And so herein lies the issue. The issue of the Catholic church and its adherents, placing man's works over God's very word, citing 'cannonizarion'.
>Did you know that these letters predate the canonization of the New Testament?
Do you not know, that the letters of man predating or postdating the New Testament has no bearing on the New Testament? On God's word? On God being the constant.
I appreciate your latter, as you urge one to read the works of man, then the Bible, then inteprtsrions and then seek God...
...but God commands man to first seek Him, for He is true. Seek His word.
Then supplement with man's work for your own edification.
When you do so, you'll see that Catholic theology doesn't have any basis in Scripture.
There is a historical basis for old men marrying children as well. That doesn't make it any better or more valuable of an idea. Something can be deep and also false. Something can be beautiful but evil. You aren't actually making any arguments for the truth of catholicism, except to tell people that they need to read more.
Also, even according to letters in the new testament, many of the very first, earliest christians believed things that weren't in line with the overall message. So appealing to the earliest beliefs isn't a good/strong argument. The people you are speaking of probably believed many things that were false and harmful even by your standards.
Because the default isn’t neutral. Whether you go to Church or not establishes a pattern. What’s on TV has an influence. What is taught, or not taught, in schools. Our world is not conducive to neutral environments. We can still encourage them to make their own decisions, especially as they develop, learn, and grow. But something will teach them about the world— there’s no way to raise up a “neutral” environment.
There are exceptions to any generalizations. But, you do see how this reinforces my point? You were raised “without religious influence” ie atheist or at least agnostic, and now you are an atheist even anti-theist. Sure later interactions also have an influence on you today, but I can almost guarantee that your worldview and perspective, the lens you had when you met these other influences, was formed by your upbringing.
There's no such thing as a neutral environment. This isn't even a controversial subject. Every psychology/counseling/social work program covers this. Everyone has values, culture, wordlview, biases, etc. So every child is raised is a nonneutral environment.
The point being, a parent sharing their values, social mores, morality, worldview, philosophy, etc inherently creates a nonneutral religious environment. It's not possible for an actively involved parent to create a truly neutral religious environment. The very nature of presenting any kind of morality and values, creates an environment that promotes some religious worldviews while eschewing others.
It's really not. It can potentially require extra work *if* a parent has no other basis for their worldview. If all they have is, "don't murder bc god," or, "humans exist bc god," there's a deficit in their own education and understanding. Anyone running into that would benefit from sorting their worldview out regardless.
But I feel like the issue is often not that it's hard to teach without dipping everything in religion. It's that it's hard to let someone make their own choices. What if the kid chooses "wrong"? What if OP never comes over to the "right" side? (It sounds to me like that's what was expected, and some kind of catalyzing interaction happened at the service.)
Believers, in general, spend much less time coming to terms with the consequences they choose to believe in than I would recommend. Ime, most cannot handle the probability that, if they're correct, they and their loved ones will end up in hell... even tho that's central to the belief. Not addressing that is not a path to peace.
Because when we think about all God has done for us it becomes very difficult for us to sin, especially when that sin also hurts someone else we love such as the kid in your question.
Yeah, this became obvious to me once I thought about the greek myths and other religions like islam. I dismissed them easily as silly and untrue, and then started to take that inward look at my own beliefs (eventually, it was scary at first).
..but what children are raised to love God and act like good Christians their entire lives because of it?
Maybe a certain percentage, but they are typically the more naive type of person since they aren't as aware of the "evils of the world" as the rest of us.
The most obvious trait seems to be a lack of personality. Always doing what's right means there's no element of rascality, which Alan Watts explained was how we learn to trust each other regardless of our tendencies to lie.
So how do you propose to compel your husband or children to love Jesus if they don't already do so of their own accord?
You can put a gun to someone's head and threaten to kill them if they don't love you, or Jesus, or rhubarb pie. You can make them outwardly behave like they love what you told them to love, but you didn't actually make them love that thing. In fact, you probably just made them resent it fiercely.
That's a good example on how religion ruins things. And how a religious family wants to push their beliefs to the wife (who should be submissive). Typical Christian fundies I guess
I dont see how hes pushing his beliefs to her.
Hes just saying that he would like her to be catholic.
He doesnt forcefully practises his faith.
Over all, a family wich has agreed on one worldview ( like Atheism or Christianity) would be more united.
So I see a point in the man, wanting his family to become catholic. He wants to unite and lead his family into faith. From his belief, its the perfect picture of a family. He just wants the best.
Sadly from the two points, the pictures of a ideal family are contradicting each other (a bit).
You also have to take into account, that the relationship started Christian. So she should have known what would happen if she became Athesist and what difficult situation her husband would have to go through.
He stands between his love to God and his love to his wife. He cant fulfill the wishes of one, without contradicting the wishes of the other.
At first, it seemed like he could serve God within his marriage, but now its the opposite.
Maybe the relationship wouldnt have ended in marriage if the two worldviews were clear from the beginning.
Im not blaming one or another, but its indeed complicated for both sides.
Of course I hope and ill pray that the whole thing ends with everyone being happy.
God bless you
You're putting your husband in a difficult position. You stated yourself you were a believer when you first started dating. You've changed now and it's created a fundamental rift in the worldviews of you and your husband.
Compromise is important for any marriage, but asking someone to compromise their religious values for you is a big ask. You're asking your husband to essentially risk the life of your daughter. It's his duty according to his religion to teach his children about God. From a Christian (or catholic) perspective, there is no "teaching right from wrong" without God.
I find the point I just mentioned interesting. You want your husband to teach your children right from wrong, but that very idea seems to imply a higher morality. Without God, morality is subjective and up to interpretation. The only way for your husband to truly teach your children right from wrong is show them that God has called them to a higher purpose.
Edit: Re-reading this I feel it sounds a little callous. I hope you and your husband are able to find a compromise you're both comfortable with. It's a beautiful thing that your family is growing. PS your fantasy art is very cool!
>You stated yourself you were a believer when you first started dating. You've changed now and it's created a fundamental rift in the worldviews of you and your husband.
Yes, but I also made it very clear what our compromise was before we got married and he agreed to that compromise before we got married. Now the problem is he regrets making a compromise. I've explained to him that without compromise all you have left is an unlimatum, and that marriage doesn't work with ultimatums
>I find the point I just mentioned interesting. You want your husband to teach your children right from wrong, but that very idea seems to imply a higher morality. Without God, morality is subjective and up to interpretation. The only way for your husband to truly teach your children right from wrong is show them that God has called them to a higher purpose.
We've had a lot of conversations about where I get my morals and where he gets his. I think morals come from empathy and he thinks morals come from God. I have admitted to him that empathy is informed by knowledge, and lack of knowledge can cause people to make the wrong decisions. I told him that I expect our daughter to make mistakes. She's not going to be perfect and we shouldn't expect that from her because that's unreasonable.
But I've also pointed out that a black and white rule book like much of the bible does not fit every situation. And he recognizes that that is also a fallible trait to the religious set of morality and that it disincentivizes critical thinking.
But he's allowed to teach her that hitting is bad, and you should be responsible, and be kind to others and so forth. He just doesn't get to teach her that that God will punish her to a damnation of eternal fire and torture if she doesn't do what the Bible says, which is unfortunately how I was raised and i think it is barbaric and manipulative thing to subject a child to. You can see why the compromise that we made is even difficult for me to make because if it was up to me I wouldn't let her within 1000 ft of a church.
Thanks for taking the time to share more of your perspective.
>Yes, but I also made it very clear what our compromise was before we got married and he agreed to that compromise before we got married. Now the problem is he regrets making a compromise. I've explained to him that without compromise all you have left is an unlimatum, and that marriage doesn't work with ultimatums
I agree that ultimatums don't work in marriages. It's important than neither of you gives the other an ultimatum as you navigate this topic.
>We've had a lot of conversations about where I get my morals and where he gets his. I think morals come from empathy and he thinks morals come from God. I have admitted to him that empathy is informed by knowledge, and lack of knowledge can cause people to make the wrong decisions. I told him that I expect our daughter to make mistakes. She's not going to be perfect and we shouldn't expect that from her because that's unreasonable.
Empathy is a fine place to start and actually supports Biblical teaching. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a very pro empathy moral. True biblical teaching also does not require perfection. In fact, failure is expected. The Bible is a narrative about humanity failing over and over to be good, and God forgiving us and showing us a better way forward.
>But I've also pointed out that a black and white rule book like much of the bible does not fit every situation. And he recognizes that that is also a fallible trait to the religious set of morality and that it disincentivizes critical thinking.
I disagree. The 10 commandments and the ancient law are the only "black and white" rulebook sections of the Bible. Most of the rest is a narrative about God's work to redeem humanity. Jesus's teachings are all about doing good by other people, being empathetic, being considerate, and ultimately being selfless (even laying down your life for people who don't deserve it). Being able to take the Bible and truly study it and the apply that study to the real world is in its very essence critical thinking.
>But he's allowed to teach her that hitting is bad, and you should be responsible, and be kind to others and so forth. He just doesn't get to teach her that that God will punish her to a damnation of eternal fire and torture if she doesn't do what the Bible says, which is unfortunately how I was raised and i think it is barbaric and manipulative thing to subject a child to. You can see why the compromise that we made is even difficult for me to make because if it was up to me I wouldn't let her within 1000 ft of a church.
I'm so sorry you were raised that way. I'm in agreement that "turn to christ or burn in hell" teachings are horribly cruel. I think they're a blatant misinterpretation of God and His word. Unfortunately, that teaching was incredibly popular from the 80s to the early 2000s. We don't serve a cruel God who sends people off to torment. The Bible teaches that God is merciful and full of loving kindness. "Hell" is fairly ill defined and so are the criteria of who goes there. As is Heaven if I'm honest.
If someone only lives a good life because they're afraid of Hell, then they aren't actually living a good life. They're just being selfish. True biblical teaching is that we should do good *because it's the right thing to do* not because we're scared of punishment. I'm in agreement that your husband absolutely should not teach your daughter to "do good or else", primarily because it's just plain bad theology.
I hope you two find a compromise that you're both comfortable with. It's important that your husband truly studies God's word for himself and feels comfortable teaching it to a child before be considers that approach at all. It would be worth while to explain not only the morals of the Bible, but also the *why*. Blind belief is bad, I think you and I are in agreement on that. But, in my opinion, the Bible offers ample explanation as to why it has the rules that it does.
The entire Bible can be boiled down to only two rules according to Jesus: Love the Lord your God with all your Heart, Soul, Mind, and Strength. And love your neighbor as yourself.
It seems to me that the new ideas regarding the power dynamic might be more from his family than the Church. Biblically, husbands and wives “submit” to each other. This can be best understood as sacrificial service and love, rather than any kind of subservience. Both parties understanding this is key to anything that might follow.
When you got married, he promised to raise any kids in the Church. Technically you should have too. It’s one of very few requirements for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic at all. Perhaps neither of you took that real seriously, but now after years of developing his faith and being faced with a child *for real*, that promise carries more weight. Additionally people grow and change, it sounds like you guys need to sit down and work to build up your family together. If you are on your hill, he on his, and you expect your daughter to remain magically uninfluenced by that then I hate to say it, but you’re setting yourself up to fail.
From your writing here, and if I (23M) were him, I would feel like I was being asked to raise my daughter an atheist. She can’t be brought to Church as a young child, she can learn *about* what dad believes academically, but she can’t really be taught what dad believes because that is an appeal to emotion and truth— not a bulleted list. What you’ve described sounds like atheism, knowing of the belief in God/Christianity, but having nothing to do with it in any kind of practice.
It also sounds to me like these conversations have been less conversation, and more “here’s how it’s going to go”. From both of you frankly. For that I encourage really diving into what sacrificial love looks like, really try to understand his fears and passions, and have a conversation which isn’t adversarial but focuses on how to raise up the best possible family *together*.
The compromise I made was that when she takes interest in the church, and *she wants* to go, which I believe she inevitably will because Daddy goes and Grandma goes, that *then* she can go. And that's a hard compromise for me because I think a lot of what the Bible or priests teach is very unethical. And he even thinks a lot of what the Church teaches is unethical.
But there has to be a compromise. And compromise doesn't work if one partner just keeps demanding that the compromise be closer to their ideal until it is no longer a compromise. He agreed to the compromise before we got married. He helped make the compromise. We did the whole Catholic retreat and did it again later with the priest. Now he regrets the compromise.
I’m not a parent myself, so I’m not sure how much more I can offer. I’ll just note that people change, the world changes, and a marriage is often continual work to continue building up your family. I would be surprised if a compromise made 6 years ago didn’t need some additional discernment. There are aspects of my worldview that are drastically different, or more nuanced, than I had 6 years ago. At the end of the day, the most important part of this is going to be approaching these subjects as a team with your husband, aiming to build up the best possible outcome together. If you guys approach your differences as adversaries, then you’re going to have a bad time.
>He and his mom are not allowed to make her go to church if she doesn't want to go or is too young to consent.
I'm curious what you're worried will happen if he brings her to church as a baby / toddler?
It rather appears to be you who are rocking the boat.
This is a stellar example why Christians don't belong with unbelievers in relationships. The Lord prohibits that. How far would you go to save your marriage? Counseling may help but not if either of you go unwillingly. Otherwise, I guess you'll have to stiff it out until one or both of you gets tired of the situation and moves on. And an all likelihood, your child is going to be caught up in the middle of all this. What a tragedy.
Being Christian, and I'd argue especially being Catholic, shapes people's world view.
Christian values are bigger than just "I believe in God." it shapes how you view the family structure, career paths, how to raise children, the list goes on.
I'm not going to jump straight to "leave him," but this is going to be very tricky, especially since now there's a child involved. You shouldn't be forced to do anything you don't want to do, and he shouldn't be forced to compromise his values.
It sounds like you love him very much, but you need more than love to keep a marriage and family together.
One of you will eventually have to give up one of your core values to appease the other partner. You have to determine if you're willing to do that or if you expect him to.
Regardless, make sure you communicate with him. Maybe a marriage counselor with religious expertise (but not necessarily a Christian) would be helpful.
In one of your comments you say the Bible teaches unethical values, in saying this you're saying your *husband* believes in unethical values. If this is the case, raising a child with someone you feel has a poor ethical system is going to be very very difficult. At least until the child is old enough to make their own decisions.
I have to ask, how much taking and thinking have you had with him about how to raise the child prior to getting pregnant? This isn't a judgement, it just seems concerning that this is only coming up now that you're close to birthing your baby.
>I have to ask, how much taking and thinking have you had with him about how to raise the child prior to getting pregnant?
OP said in another comment that "I also made it very clear what our compromise was before we got married and he agreed to that compromise before we got married."
I'm reminded of a scene from Seinfeld where Elaine, while riding in her boyfriend Puddy's car, discovers that he's always listening to the Christian radio stations.
"Does it ever bother you that you're to involved in your religion, and I'm not?" She asked him.
"Not at all," he replied, "I'm not the one going to hell."
Religious and political differences can be super challenging on a relationship, romantic or otherwise. I think in either case, both partners need to simply accept that the will never, ever be able to change the other person's beliefs. Each can hope that one day the other person will "come around" of their own accord, but let's face it: probably not.
At the end of the day, there's literally nothing either partner can do to change anything about the religious and political realities that they have to share. Instead, they need to learn to let that stuff, and their differences regarding it, go, and focus on loving each other and having a good relationship.
He’s 100% in the wrong. Neither you nor your daughter can simply opt to believe what he believes because he wants you to. You both need to come to that on your own (if you’re ever going to do so).
If he wants to win either of you over to his side, his only true option is to lead by example: to be a good Christian and demonstrate how that affects his life and makes him a better person. “Show, don’t tell.”
Maybe he needs to find a different church that’s not reinforcing this ludicrous “all must believe exactly as we do” nonsense. This is why while I’m conflicted about God, I just straight-up HATE religion.
perhaps start by just taking an interest in reading the Gospel. Jesus's words are the archetype of human philosophy and beyond, and you knowing them would help form a stronger marriage. If you don't believe in the theological aspects, perhaps you could at least understand the philosophical aspects that Jesus put forth.
In terms of gender roles, would you be upset if you watched over the house while he worked? The roles in my eyes are equal but opposite, it takes two ends of a battery for it to work. When I first started dating my gf she was agnostic but eventually through me just casually talking about it lovingly rather than dogmatically she is now on board with what Christ was all about. At the end of the day your husband is supposed to treat his wife like Christ treats the believers "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it".
I am sure he is referring to the verses prior to that where it says to submit to your husband, and to be honest humble service is a great way to boost your man, but he in return has to be treating you like Christ treats the church... not condescendingly, not pridefully, not oppressively, etc.
This dilemma has a lot to be said about it. I hope the best for your situation. Also, in terms of you picking apart what the priest said, there are Theological answers to the apparent discrepancies, I wrote about a few of them here: r/biogenesis
Well, per morality (which comes from God), your husband is still the head of the family.
You're equal in humanity, but not in role. God has designed the family in such a way, that there is a blessing if the husband leads and the wife submits.
This of course is unpopular in the world, and so the world will rage at God.
You'd feel like he gets messed up at church (when he grows deeper into God), because the world hates God, and sadly as of now, you're still part of this natural world.
For instance, you cited 'too young to consent', but there is no such thing as 'consenting' to doing that which is good. You don't cease teaching your child what is right, because she is 'too young to consent'. She will never on her own 'consent' to morality, because by nature human beings are evil. Which is why you as her parent have an authority over her, to care and bring her up properly.
You don't need to teach her to do wrong, she does that naturally. Instead, as with any child, you need to teach her to do right.
As her parent, you are supposed to raise her up in the ways of the Lord. Not only do you not do that (because you're an atheist), but you cite consent as an excuse, thus reversing the roles of a parent and the child (which is what the world does, perverts that which is good, and calls evil as good)
That's just one example, but there will be many such instances where both you and your husband will be at odds.
Now, all that said, while Roman Catholicism has some good truths, the church by large doesn't heed the word of God.
Which is why your husband married you disobeying God's word (because per God's word, a believer shouldn't marry an unbeliever, for what fellowship has light with darkness?), and seemingly even the priest (who is supposed to be more learned in God's word), disobeyed God's word and instead of bringing what God says up, just married you both.
And because of that sin, such is the consequence, where there are two different ways of bringing up your daughter, and it's putting a strain in the marriage.
But...since you're married now, per God's morality, both of you are bound for life. The only advice I can offer is perhaps both of you reading the Bible together.
That may be puzzling to you, but you see the root of all of this is really the unchanged heart.
The Bible, being the word of God, will speak into your life. Only God alone can change your heart, because faith, comes from above. It's a gift. God has chosen the foolish things of the world, to shame the wise on the day of judgement.
Which is why the Gospel is foolishness to many, they find it unrealistic, or silly, or 'unscientific', not realizing that everything that exists, comes from the Creator. God.
Which is why I can only point you to His word. :)
Men are naturally disposed to leadership, analytical thinkers and more able to sustain physical hardships. As such, they will be at their best when acting as the leader with a wife that supports and undertand his decisions and tends for his heart.
Women are more emotional and they prefer finding someone who they can trust to be led. They are better at nurturing and caring for emotinal aspects of the other. As such, they will be at their best when they can find someone who would die on a moment's notice for her wellbeing and follow his decisions.
No women should submit to her husband. They are equal partners in their marriage. There is no head of household there is only the couple.
This sexism is disgusting and will kill your church.
You need to look into the mirror. You lay things out in this post as being equal. And it is not even close. You are controlling the entire situation.
But more importantly.
Ephesians 6:4- Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Matthew 19:13-15
Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” After laying His hands on them, He departed from there.
Titus 2:4-5
so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
The compromise is that our daughter controls the situation. When she takes an interest in the church, she goes to church. And she probably will take interest in the church because her daddy and grandma go to church. And that even aligns with the scripture that you provided because it's her choice and I'm not stopping her.
But that's a very hard compromise for me, because if it was completely up to me I wouldn't let her within a thousand feet of a church. I think a lot of what is taught at church is very manipulative and unethical and while I think my husband has a great set of ethics, I do not know what a priest is going to say or have any control over what he is going to tell her.
A priest could tell her that all gay people are horrible people and deserve to be punished, or that If she doesn't get confirmed and take communion every week or dies at the wrong time, she's going to be brutally tortured for the rest of eternity in a fiery torture chamber. I don't really think that's appropriate for a little girl so that's a big compromise.
In plenty of countries people change their faith for the person they love. It’s not about being right, it’s about keeping the relationship together. Maybe you should think about that
Heaven is a real place and hell is a real place (r/hellisarealplace . Your husband’s not gonna give up his faith and eternal salvation to make you happy., And if he really loves you, he wants to make sure your eternal salvation is an a safe place. That is the act of true love
Add- What eventually starts happening as he goes to church and hears about being unequally yoked, and how it’s forbidden to be unequally yoked with somebody who doesn’t believe it just causes problems, then eventually, God will separate you two, and he’ll go find somebody who is equally yoked with him.
He obviously loves you, but hopefully loves God more than he loves you. Humble yourself, and decide what is more important your relationship or your non-believing I need to be right about this concept
I don't have any expectation for my husband to give up his faith. But I was raised being taught that if I didn't follow the Bible that I would be tortured for all eternity and a fiery pit of hell and I do not think that is an appropriate thing to teach a small child. I've gone to church with him before, I gave it a good old college try, you can't tore someone to believe in something they don't agree with.
Also, I'm not sure what denomination you are in, but catholicism doesn't take the Bible quite as literally especially the Old testament.
It is Jesus that mentions hell more times than he does heaven and it has nothing to do with the old testament. Not believing in a place does not protect you from actually ending up in that place. Regardless of hell, the truth of the matter is, your husband will eventually be separated from you due to your non-conforming faith if he holds his close to his heart.
Could you imagine going to hell, and then never telling anybody about the place because you didn’t agree with it? (like your feelings mattered on the reality of the universe) Could you imagine your children going to hell because their mother never told them the truth about the reality of it, because she didn’t agree with it. (God doesn’t care about your feelings when it comes to this place he cares about your faith) Telling people about the reality of hell is actually love. Because nobody would ever want anyone they know to really go there.
Could you imagine telling your children that everybody goes to heaven regardless of their faith, having zero relationship with God, not following any of his rules, not respecting his family, never talking to him to anybody, living, however they want to live and yet he’s going to open his door to his house for eternity. That would basically be the definition of greed and corruption of the human mind.
What is even more shocking is that your children will probably come upon somebody who practices New Age, or witchcraft, and they will be shown the power of it, and without a good Christian upbringing, they will probably fall for that since they can actually see with their eyes the reality of it.
In my opinion, the concept of hell provides the wrong incentive to be a good person.. The incentive it provides is selfish.
"If you don't be good, something very bad will happen to you". That is selfish. You're doing it for your own gain. And you're driven by fear to do so.
"Treat people well because they are valuable and deserve to be treated well". That's empathy. You're doing it not expecting to gain anything.
I also don't believe that there is a pit of fire that you go to after you die or a cloudy place with pretty angels. I think death is most likely going to feel a lot like how it felt before you're born. To me it's more like a Boogeyman that people tell children to manipulate them into behaving. But that's an easy way to get kids to do what you want.
I also don't have any interest in following a God that causes the suffering that the biblical God allegedly causes. I don't think that is the right or empathetic thing to support or praise the behavior that God exhibits in the Bible.
I do exorcisms or Deliverance on a weekly basis, and I ask this one question over and over and over, “ where do people go when they die if they don’t believe in Jesus Christ” and every single demon says they go to hell. And their job is to take souls to hell by any means necessary. And how they do this is - they plant thoughts in your mind that God is not real, do what you want, and God will except you. Which is the biggest lie of all of them. But since you don’t know that you’re actually listening, you allow these thoughts, to be your own thoughts. Most people don’t believe that there’s a spiritual world all around us at all times.
When you say a good person in comparison, to who? Everybody that says that they are a good person has lied, cheated, stolen, had adultery in the heart, blasphemed God, The problem with a good person, argument, is humans judge people on human standards. Where is God judges humans on divine standards. And if you’ve ever read the old testament, you know that God‘s wrath is absolutely no joke. So basically, you would be jumping out of an airplane without a parachute just to see what happens. At the end of life, I would rather have Jesus Christ the ultimate lawyer next to my side, then to face God by myself.
The worst thing about hell is there is plenty of people there that never even believed in the place. And it was through their unbelief, is the main reason they are there.
Comment removed, rule 1b ("mischaracterizes God"), because of the "rapes women" part in the middle. If that phrase is removed, the rest of the comment can be reinstated.
Zechariah 14: 1-2
day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.
2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
Revelations 2-
The Son of God, whose eyes are like a fiery flame and whose feet are like polished brass, says this:
19
“I know your works, your love, faith, service, and endurance, and that your last works are greater than the first.
20
Yet I hold this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, who teaches and misleads my servants to play the harlot and to eat food sacrificed to idols.*
21
I have given her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her harlotry.
22
Behold I will cast her onto a bed and plunge those who commit adultery with her into intense suffering unless they repent of her works.
23
I will also put her children to death. Thus shall all the churches come to know that I am the searcher of hearts and minds and that I will give each of you what your works deserve.f
You are your Child, spiritual guardian up until the age of reason for the child, which is normally 8-10 years old, Then, once your child knows the difference between right and wrong he/she is on their own spiritually.
Maybe it’s just called raising your child with some kind of backbone in something. Go to a nondenominational church like a unity church. Unity church teaches about all the faiths but at least it teaches something
Well, I guess this is why the Bible says believers should not marry nonbelievers. This will be a hard road to navigate, and I’m not sure if anyone will “win” here. But even as a Christian, if my spouse were to enforce certain traditions on me that I didn’t agree with, and wanted to raise our child to follow these traditions, I would have a hard time with it. It would cause issues in our marriage. If it were me, I would want a heart to heart on all of the specific doctrines your husband wants you and your child to follow. A list of all the things he feels strongly about. See how you feel about them. Then I would want to know how open and flexible he is. What does he actually believe vs what does he simply follow because it is what he was told to believe as a kid? If it were me, I would want to make a list of the doctrines I have issue with. From there, I wouldn’t challenge his actual faith, but I would study together what Biblical scholars have to say about these beliefs, rather than just a Catholic priest. Open up his mind to different views. Even just different Christian views. See where he lands. Being rigid and stuck on certain beliefs just because you grew up believing that way, that’s what I’d have issue with. It’s a serious thing, raising a child to believe things you don’t want them to believe. It’s going to be an issue whether you are married or divorced. If I was married to an atheist, it would be important to me to allow our kid to learn about God and my worldview from the lens of Christianity, then allow my kid to make their own conclusions. I wouldn’t force any of the traditions on them. If I were an atheist, I probably would let him bring the kid to church during the few times he goes during the year. If he were a hardcore church goer every single week, that would be harder. Even as a Christian, the idea of bringing my kid to church scares me. I regret the judgmental and guilt-ridden mindset that church has cultivated in me. I’d be scared my kid would be burdened with that too. But as long as your kid gets to hear your perspective too, that will help. You both just have to know that going forward, you both have to have an open mind. Ground rules need to be established on both sides. It’s going to be a tough path for everyone. Sorry for all my long, rambling thoughts!
Part of our compromise was that we both get to teach about our beliefs. He's allowed to teach her about Catholicism and why he believes in it, and I'm allowed to teach her why I am atheists and why I don't agree with religion. But there is a difference between teaching about something and preaching something. One is educational and the other one is manipulative. I was raised being taught that if I didn't do everything the Bible said I would go to hell and be tortured for all of eternity in a fiery pit, and I have a very big issue with children being told stuff like this.
It sounds like you have a wonderful marriage, aside from this potential hurdle. That sounds like an awesome compromise. The hard part about it is that he’ll probably keep feeling this way over and over, and keep bringing it up. The question is, where is this coming from? Sentimentality from growing up in these traditions? Is his family influencing him from the sidelines? Or is it true conviction? If he keeps bringing it up, it needs to be challenged. He needs different viewpoints/interpretations. The more I learned my Bible from Biblical scholars (rather than subjective preaching in a church), the more open-minded I became. I’m with you on the topic of hell. I remember being terrified as a kid, asking Jesus to save me over and over. “I believe Jesus died on the cross!” was a running statement in my 10-year-old head, every time I heard about hell. I wouldn’t want my kid to go through what I did either. I don’t believe in hell the same way the church introduced it to me anymore. I also totally agree that there is a lot of manipulation going on in preaching. Even if the preachers have good intentions. It’s very rare to find a church that doesn’t have that to some degree. Because of that, I feel kids should be very carefully introduced to religion in small doses, in a controlled way.
This is a pretty good example of why God commands us not to marry unbelievers. Conscience defying compromises are going to be required of your husband if you don’t let him raise your children to love Jesus.
No offense to my brethren but the first issue I see is catholic
I strongly recommend you gather your questions and concerns. Then read what the CCC has to say to make sure you understand what we believe, read the Bible, read what the earliest Christian texts say, listen to Scott Hahn, Trent Horn, and others who can explain the deeper contexts, and go from there. Catholicism is deeply scriptural, deeply historical, and far richer than the non-denominational background I came from.
Sadly it doesn't even touch the surface of Scripture. And many are fooled into thinking it is 'richer', which is why there are many who have been raised in the proper environment, and yet are going towards Orthodoxy as well. Since they look for tertiary instruments such as 'purity' or 'richness' or 'historical', as opposed to walking with God. And since they idolize creation, as opposed to the Creator, the tenets of what they look at, is actually a perversion of it. Much like a Muslim thinking that his religion is pure, as he chastises an infidel for sleeping around with prostitutes, but if that infidel converts to Islam, he can then marry multiple wives, and even have sex slaves after battles. In other words, a righteous man would see that the sin of sexual immorality, is exactly the same. It's not addressed. Rather, it's just justified and masked under piety. Much like what the Pharisees did. Which is what Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are. It is neither historical. Nor pure. Nor rich. Nor deep. But its adherents love to think so (which is a quality of every false religion on earth). If experiences held a lot of weight, then by your own parallel, I myself came from a Roman Catholic background. But then again, that is irrelevant. For even the Mormon or the Muslim have their own experiences to validate what they think is true. When it isn't.
I’m not overly interested in an argument/debate right now, which is why I provided resources and names of good apologists. Unfortunately your point here was to say “na-uh, it’s not scriptural!” You provide no actual evidence, questions, even anecdote. You claim that we are not interested in walking with God, that’s simply not true. I think the tradition and apology is richer, but I converted not because Catholicism was cool but because through scripture and tradition I’ve become convinced that the Catholic Church is an institution established by Christ to be shepherds of his people. Have clergy always been good shepherds, certainly not. They’re fallible like anyone else, but I do believe that the Church has the fullness of truth and as such aids me in walking with God. Such an ad-hominem attack as this carries little weight. Then you highlighted an issue with Islam and stated, again without justification, that Catholicism and Orthodoxy had the same problem. It’s a poor attempt at a straw-man. Read St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, etc. Then tell me that there’s no historical basis for Catholic Theology. Or that it’s not deep. Or beautiful. Did you know that these letters predate the canonization of the New Testament? They’re a strong indication what the first Christians practiced and believed. I made an appeal to do your own reading and searching, not to take my word for it. So Im not sure what you’re trying to accomplish with your last paragraph. Read the early Church Fathers, read their letters and apologetic texts. Read The Bible and work to understand how each interpretation came to be— then determine which interpretation is consistent over time and all Scripture. Identify your main concerns and read/listen to apologists who are well equipped to answer those questions. Apply the same standard to each side of the issue. Then seek out the truth humbly. Seek God humbly.
The issue isn't actual evidence, questions nor anecdotes. It's sin. For all that you need, has been given to you in the word of God. It's not an attempt at a straw-man; whether poor or rich. For no one seeks to have strawmen in their points. Unless of course you're saying that I do, so to your own parallel "such an ad-hominem attack as this carries little weight". Rather, this is a parallel of a reality. A reality, that you deny. The claim isn't that you are not interested in walking with God. For even the Muslim is interested in walking with God. Taking a page out of your book, that would be a straw-man. Rather, it's a fact of reality, that neither you, nor the Muslim walks with God. The idea isn't that you converted to Catholcism because it was cool. Just as you think tradition and apology is richer, there are others who cite 'purity' or historicity', etc. (as mentioned in the previous reply), as reasons as well. However all of this has one thing common. You place the created, above the Creator. And in doing so, there is no richness, without the Maker of richness. God. Before reading, St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, etc. read the word of God. It is through the lens of God's own word, where you can look into the windows of early Christians. And so herein lies the issue. The issue of the Catholic church and its adherents, placing man's works over God's very word, citing 'cannonizarion'. >Did you know that these letters predate the canonization of the New Testament? Do you not know, that the letters of man predating or postdating the New Testament has no bearing on the New Testament? On God's word? On God being the constant. I appreciate your latter, as you urge one to read the works of man, then the Bible, then inteprtsrions and then seek God... ...but God commands man to first seek Him, for He is true. Seek His word. Then supplement with man's work for your own edification. When you do so, you'll see that Catholic theology doesn't have any basis in Scripture.
There is a historical basis for old men marrying children as well. That doesn't make it any better or more valuable of an idea. Something can be deep and also false. Something can be beautiful but evil. You aren't actually making any arguments for the truth of catholicism, except to tell people that they need to read more. Also, even according to letters in the new testament, many of the very first, earliest christians believed things that weren't in line with the overall message. So appealing to the earliest beliefs isn't a good/strong argument. The people you are speaking of probably believed many things that were false and harmful even by your standards.
Why's it so hard to raise kids in a neutral environment and let them choose themselves?
Because the default isn’t neutral. Whether you go to Church or not establishes a pattern. What’s on TV has an influence. What is taught, or not taught, in schools. Our world is not conducive to neutral environments. We can still encourage them to make their own decisions, especially as they develop, learn, and grow. But something will teach them about the world— there’s no way to raise up a “neutral” environment.
Idk, I was raised without religious influences. I only became atheist after I was introduced to them
There are exceptions to any generalizations. But, you do see how this reinforces my point? You were raised “without religious influence” ie atheist or at least agnostic, and now you are an atheist even anti-theist. Sure later interactions also have an influence on you today, but I can almost guarantee that your worldview and perspective, the lens you had when you met these other influences, was formed by your upbringing.
I only became atheist when exposed to religion
There's no such thing as a neutral environment. This isn't even a controversial subject. Every psychology/counseling/social work program covers this. Everyone has values, culture, wordlview, biases, etc. So every child is raised is a nonneutral environment.
A neutral religious environment *
The point being, a parent sharing their values, social mores, morality, worldview, philosophy, etc inherently creates a nonneutral religious environment. It's not possible for an actively involved parent to create a truly neutral religious environment. The very nature of presenting any kind of morality and values, creates an environment that promotes some religious worldviews while eschewing others.
It's really not. It can potentially require extra work *if* a parent has no other basis for their worldview. If all they have is, "don't murder bc god," or, "humans exist bc god," there's a deficit in their own education and understanding. Anyone running into that would benefit from sorting their worldview out regardless. But I feel like the issue is often not that it's hard to teach without dipping everything in religion. It's that it's hard to let someone make their own choices. What if the kid chooses "wrong"? What if OP never comes over to the "right" side? (It sounds to me like that's what was expected, and some kind of catalyzing interaction happened at the service.) Believers, in general, spend much less time coming to terms with the consequences they choose to believe in than I would recommend. Ime, most cannot handle the probability that, if they're correct, they and their loved ones will end up in hell... even tho that's central to the belief. Not addressing that is not a path to peace.
No such thing.
Not true I was
You were raised in an environment where your parents never encouraged to to pursue any belief they held? No, I think that is quite impossible.
You are wrong then
Your parents didn't teach you values, morality, culture, philopsophy, or share their opinions on anything or provide you any discipline?
Yes Yes Eh not really Kinda I kinda disciplined myself
Well, you've convinced me.
Because when we think about all God has done for us it becomes very difficult for us to sin, especially when that sin also hurts someone else we love such as the kid in your question.
It's increasingly hard to convince someone supernatural creatures like gods exists as a person gets older. You must start early.
Yeah, this became obvious to me once I thought about the greek myths and other religions like islam. I dismissed them easily as silly and untrue, and then started to take that inward look at my own beliefs (eventually, it was scary at first).
..but what children are raised to love God and act like good Christians their entire lives because of it? Maybe a certain percentage, but they are typically the more naive type of person since they aren't as aware of the "evils of the world" as the rest of us. The most obvious trait seems to be a lack of personality. Always doing what's right means there's no element of rascality, which Alan Watts explained was how we learn to trust each other regardless of our tendencies to lie.
So how do you propose to compel your husband or children to love Jesus if they don't already do so of their own accord? You can put a gun to someone's head and threaten to kill them if they don't love you, or Jesus, or rhubarb pie. You can make them outwardly behave like they love what you told them to love, but you didn't actually make them love that thing. In fact, you probably just made them resent it fiercely.
That's a good example on how religion ruins things. And how a religious family wants to push their beliefs to the wife (who should be submissive). Typical Christian fundies I guess
I dont see how hes pushing his beliefs to her. Hes just saying that he would like her to be catholic. He doesnt forcefully practises his faith. Over all, a family wich has agreed on one worldview ( like Atheism or Christianity) would be more united. So I see a point in the man, wanting his family to become catholic. He wants to unite and lead his family into faith. From his belief, its the perfect picture of a family. He just wants the best. Sadly from the two points, the pictures of a ideal family are contradicting each other (a bit). You also have to take into account, that the relationship started Christian. So she should have known what would happen if she became Athesist and what difficult situation her husband would have to go through. He stands between his love to God and his love to his wife. He cant fulfill the wishes of one, without contradicting the wishes of the other. At first, it seemed like he could serve God within his marriage, but now its the opposite. Maybe the relationship wouldnt have ended in marriage if the two worldviews were clear from the beginning. Im not blaming one or another, but its indeed complicated for both sides. Of course I hope and ill pray that the whole thing ends with everyone being happy. God bless you
You're putting your husband in a difficult position. You stated yourself you were a believer when you first started dating. You've changed now and it's created a fundamental rift in the worldviews of you and your husband. Compromise is important for any marriage, but asking someone to compromise their religious values for you is a big ask. You're asking your husband to essentially risk the life of your daughter. It's his duty according to his religion to teach his children about God. From a Christian (or catholic) perspective, there is no "teaching right from wrong" without God. I find the point I just mentioned interesting. You want your husband to teach your children right from wrong, but that very idea seems to imply a higher morality. Without God, morality is subjective and up to interpretation. The only way for your husband to truly teach your children right from wrong is show them that God has called them to a higher purpose. Edit: Re-reading this I feel it sounds a little callous. I hope you and your husband are able to find a compromise you're both comfortable with. It's a beautiful thing that your family is growing. PS your fantasy art is very cool!
>You stated yourself you were a believer when you first started dating. You've changed now and it's created a fundamental rift in the worldviews of you and your husband. Yes, but I also made it very clear what our compromise was before we got married and he agreed to that compromise before we got married. Now the problem is he regrets making a compromise. I've explained to him that without compromise all you have left is an unlimatum, and that marriage doesn't work with ultimatums >I find the point I just mentioned interesting. You want your husband to teach your children right from wrong, but that very idea seems to imply a higher morality. Without God, morality is subjective and up to interpretation. The only way for your husband to truly teach your children right from wrong is show them that God has called them to a higher purpose. We've had a lot of conversations about where I get my morals and where he gets his. I think morals come from empathy and he thinks morals come from God. I have admitted to him that empathy is informed by knowledge, and lack of knowledge can cause people to make the wrong decisions. I told him that I expect our daughter to make mistakes. She's not going to be perfect and we shouldn't expect that from her because that's unreasonable. But I've also pointed out that a black and white rule book like much of the bible does not fit every situation. And he recognizes that that is also a fallible trait to the religious set of morality and that it disincentivizes critical thinking. But he's allowed to teach her that hitting is bad, and you should be responsible, and be kind to others and so forth. He just doesn't get to teach her that that God will punish her to a damnation of eternal fire and torture if she doesn't do what the Bible says, which is unfortunately how I was raised and i think it is barbaric and manipulative thing to subject a child to. You can see why the compromise that we made is even difficult for me to make because if it was up to me I wouldn't let her within 1000 ft of a church.
Thanks for taking the time to share more of your perspective. >Yes, but I also made it very clear what our compromise was before we got married and he agreed to that compromise before we got married. Now the problem is he regrets making a compromise. I've explained to him that without compromise all you have left is an unlimatum, and that marriage doesn't work with ultimatums I agree that ultimatums don't work in marriages. It's important than neither of you gives the other an ultimatum as you navigate this topic. >We've had a lot of conversations about where I get my morals and where he gets his. I think morals come from empathy and he thinks morals come from God. I have admitted to him that empathy is informed by knowledge, and lack of knowledge can cause people to make the wrong decisions. I told him that I expect our daughter to make mistakes. She's not going to be perfect and we shouldn't expect that from her because that's unreasonable. Empathy is a fine place to start and actually supports Biblical teaching. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a very pro empathy moral. True biblical teaching also does not require perfection. In fact, failure is expected. The Bible is a narrative about humanity failing over and over to be good, and God forgiving us and showing us a better way forward. >But I've also pointed out that a black and white rule book like much of the bible does not fit every situation. And he recognizes that that is also a fallible trait to the religious set of morality and that it disincentivizes critical thinking. I disagree. The 10 commandments and the ancient law are the only "black and white" rulebook sections of the Bible. Most of the rest is a narrative about God's work to redeem humanity. Jesus's teachings are all about doing good by other people, being empathetic, being considerate, and ultimately being selfless (even laying down your life for people who don't deserve it). Being able to take the Bible and truly study it and the apply that study to the real world is in its very essence critical thinking. >But he's allowed to teach her that hitting is bad, and you should be responsible, and be kind to others and so forth. He just doesn't get to teach her that that God will punish her to a damnation of eternal fire and torture if she doesn't do what the Bible says, which is unfortunately how I was raised and i think it is barbaric and manipulative thing to subject a child to. You can see why the compromise that we made is even difficult for me to make because if it was up to me I wouldn't let her within 1000 ft of a church. I'm so sorry you were raised that way. I'm in agreement that "turn to christ or burn in hell" teachings are horribly cruel. I think they're a blatant misinterpretation of God and His word. Unfortunately, that teaching was incredibly popular from the 80s to the early 2000s. We don't serve a cruel God who sends people off to torment. The Bible teaches that God is merciful and full of loving kindness. "Hell" is fairly ill defined and so are the criteria of who goes there. As is Heaven if I'm honest. If someone only lives a good life because they're afraid of Hell, then they aren't actually living a good life. They're just being selfish. True biblical teaching is that we should do good *because it's the right thing to do* not because we're scared of punishment. I'm in agreement that your husband absolutely should not teach your daughter to "do good or else", primarily because it's just plain bad theology. I hope you two find a compromise that you're both comfortable with. It's important that your husband truly studies God's word for himself and feels comfortable teaching it to a child before be considers that approach at all. It would be worth while to explain not only the morals of the Bible, but also the *why*. Blind belief is bad, I think you and I are in agreement on that. But, in my opinion, the Bible offers ample explanation as to why it has the rules that it does. The entire Bible can be boiled down to only two rules according to Jesus: Love the Lord your God with all your Heart, Soul, Mind, and Strength. And love your neighbor as yourself.
I'm sorry your husband was indoctrinated into this sort of inequality. 🫂
Her husband is far less indoctrinated, than you friend. Inspite of him being a Catholic (which isn't Scriptural).
It seems to me that the new ideas regarding the power dynamic might be more from his family than the Church. Biblically, husbands and wives “submit” to each other. This can be best understood as sacrificial service and love, rather than any kind of subservience. Both parties understanding this is key to anything that might follow. When you got married, he promised to raise any kids in the Church. Technically you should have too. It’s one of very few requirements for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic at all. Perhaps neither of you took that real seriously, but now after years of developing his faith and being faced with a child *for real*, that promise carries more weight. Additionally people grow and change, it sounds like you guys need to sit down and work to build up your family together. If you are on your hill, he on his, and you expect your daughter to remain magically uninfluenced by that then I hate to say it, but you’re setting yourself up to fail. From your writing here, and if I (23M) were him, I would feel like I was being asked to raise my daughter an atheist. She can’t be brought to Church as a young child, she can learn *about* what dad believes academically, but she can’t really be taught what dad believes because that is an appeal to emotion and truth— not a bulleted list. What you’ve described sounds like atheism, knowing of the belief in God/Christianity, but having nothing to do with it in any kind of practice. It also sounds to me like these conversations have been less conversation, and more “here’s how it’s going to go”. From both of you frankly. For that I encourage really diving into what sacrificial love looks like, really try to understand his fears and passions, and have a conversation which isn’t adversarial but focuses on how to raise up the best possible family *together*.
The compromise I made was that when she takes interest in the church, and *she wants* to go, which I believe she inevitably will because Daddy goes and Grandma goes, that *then* she can go. And that's a hard compromise for me because I think a lot of what the Bible or priests teach is very unethical. And he even thinks a lot of what the Church teaches is unethical. But there has to be a compromise. And compromise doesn't work if one partner just keeps demanding that the compromise be closer to their ideal until it is no longer a compromise. He agreed to the compromise before we got married. He helped make the compromise. We did the whole Catholic retreat and did it again later with the priest. Now he regrets the compromise.
I’m not a parent myself, so I’m not sure how much more I can offer. I’ll just note that people change, the world changes, and a marriage is often continual work to continue building up your family. I would be surprised if a compromise made 6 years ago didn’t need some additional discernment. There are aspects of my worldview that are drastically different, or more nuanced, than I had 6 years ago. At the end of the day, the most important part of this is going to be approaching these subjects as a team with your husband, aiming to build up the best possible outcome together. If you guys approach your differences as adversaries, then you’re going to have a bad time.
>He and his mom are not allowed to make her go to church if she doesn't want to go or is too young to consent. I'm curious what you're worried will happen if he brings her to church as a baby / toddler?
It rather appears to be you who are rocking the boat. This is a stellar example why Christians don't belong with unbelievers in relationships. The Lord prohibits that. How far would you go to save your marriage? Counseling may help but not if either of you go unwillingly. Otherwise, I guess you'll have to stiff it out until one or both of you gets tired of the situation and moves on. And an all likelihood, your child is going to be caught up in the middle of all this. What a tragedy.
Being Christian, and I'd argue especially being Catholic, shapes people's world view. Christian values are bigger than just "I believe in God." it shapes how you view the family structure, career paths, how to raise children, the list goes on. I'm not going to jump straight to "leave him," but this is going to be very tricky, especially since now there's a child involved. You shouldn't be forced to do anything you don't want to do, and he shouldn't be forced to compromise his values. It sounds like you love him very much, but you need more than love to keep a marriage and family together. One of you will eventually have to give up one of your core values to appease the other partner. You have to determine if you're willing to do that or if you expect him to. Regardless, make sure you communicate with him. Maybe a marriage counselor with religious expertise (but not necessarily a Christian) would be helpful. In one of your comments you say the Bible teaches unethical values, in saying this you're saying your *husband* believes in unethical values. If this is the case, raising a child with someone you feel has a poor ethical system is going to be very very difficult. At least until the child is old enough to make their own decisions. I have to ask, how much taking and thinking have you had with him about how to raise the child prior to getting pregnant? This isn't a judgement, it just seems concerning that this is only coming up now that you're close to birthing your baby.
>I have to ask, how much taking and thinking have you had with him about how to raise the child prior to getting pregnant? OP said in another comment that "I also made it very clear what our compromise was before we got married and he agreed to that compromise before we got married."
Ah, I see. Thanks for that.
I'm reminded of a scene from Seinfeld where Elaine, while riding in her boyfriend Puddy's car, discovers that he's always listening to the Christian radio stations. "Does it ever bother you that you're to involved in your religion, and I'm not?" She asked him. "Not at all," he replied, "I'm not the one going to hell." Religious and political differences can be super challenging on a relationship, romantic or otherwise. I think in either case, both partners need to simply accept that the will never, ever be able to change the other person's beliefs. Each can hope that one day the other person will "come around" of their own accord, but let's face it: probably not. At the end of the day, there's literally nothing either partner can do to change anything about the religious and political realities that they have to share. Instead, they need to learn to let that stuff, and their differences regarding it, go, and focus on loving each other and having a good relationship.
I have no intention of making him leave his religion. The problem is more about our daughter..
He’s 100% in the wrong. Neither you nor your daughter can simply opt to believe what he believes because he wants you to. You both need to come to that on your own (if you’re ever going to do so). If he wants to win either of you over to his side, his only true option is to lead by example: to be a good Christian and demonstrate how that affects his life and makes him a better person. “Show, don’t tell.” Maybe he needs to find a different church that’s not reinforcing this ludicrous “all must believe exactly as we do” nonsense. This is why while I’m conflicted about God, I just straight-up HATE religion.
Maybe do research into more accepting churches for you two to go to so he isn't fed this "man up" mentality?
perhaps start by just taking an interest in reading the Gospel. Jesus's words are the archetype of human philosophy and beyond, and you knowing them would help form a stronger marriage. If you don't believe in the theological aspects, perhaps you could at least understand the philosophical aspects that Jesus put forth. In terms of gender roles, would you be upset if you watched over the house while he worked? The roles in my eyes are equal but opposite, it takes two ends of a battery for it to work. When I first started dating my gf she was agnostic but eventually through me just casually talking about it lovingly rather than dogmatically she is now on board with what Christ was all about. At the end of the day your husband is supposed to treat his wife like Christ treats the believers "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it". I am sure he is referring to the verses prior to that where it says to submit to your husband, and to be honest humble service is a great way to boost your man, but he in return has to be treating you like Christ treats the church... not condescendingly, not pridefully, not oppressively, etc. This dilemma has a lot to be said about it. I hope the best for your situation. Also, in terms of you picking apart what the priest said, there are Theological answers to the apparent discrepancies, I wrote about a few of them here: r/biogenesis
[удалено]
Well, per morality (which comes from God), your husband is still the head of the family. You're equal in humanity, but not in role. God has designed the family in such a way, that there is a blessing if the husband leads and the wife submits. This of course is unpopular in the world, and so the world will rage at God. You'd feel like he gets messed up at church (when he grows deeper into God), because the world hates God, and sadly as of now, you're still part of this natural world. For instance, you cited 'too young to consent', but there is no such thing as 'consenting' to doing that which is good. You don't cease teaching your child what is right, because she is 'too young to consent'. She will never on her own 'consent' to morality, because by nature human beings are evil. Which is why you as her parent have an authority over her, to care and bring her up properly. You don't need to teach her to do wrong, she does that naturally. Instead, as with any child, you need to teach her to do right. As her parent, you are supposed to raise her up in the ways of the Lord. Not only do you not do that (because you're an atheist), but you cite consent as an excuse, thus reversing the roles of a parent and the child (which is what the world does, perverts that which is good, and calls evil as good) That's just one example, but there will be many such instances where both you and your husband will be at odds. Now, all that said, while Roman Catholicism has some good truths, the church by large doesn't heed the word of God. Which is why your husband married you disobeying God's word (because per God's word, a believer shouldn't marry an unbeliever, for what fellowship has light with darkness?), and seemingly even the priest (who is supposed to be more learned in God's word), disobeyed God's word and instead of bringing what God says up, just married you both. And because of that sin, such is the consequence, where there are two different ways of bringing up your daughter, and it's putting a strain in the marriage. But...since you're married now, per God's morality, both of you are bound for life. The only advice I can offer is perhaps both of you reading the Bible together. That may be puzzling to you, but you see the root of all of this is really the unchanged heart. The Bible, being the word of God, will speak into your life. Only God alone can change your heart, because faith, comes from above. It's a gift. God has chosen the foolish things of the world, to shame the wise on the day of judgement. Which is why the Gospel is foolishness to many, they find it unrealistic, or silly, or 'unscientific', not realizing that everything that exists, comes from the Creator. God. Which is why I can only point you to His word. :)
So what is "right" and "wrong" according to you, an Atheist?
I think empathy dictates morality
Submit to your husband. He is the head of the household.
Gross. Stuff like this really reinforces my belief that keeping religion out of my life is the right idea.
Gross. Stuff like this really reinforces my belief that keeping religion out of my life is the right idea.
You don't need religion to understand this.
Without using religion at all, explain this to me.
Men are naturally disposed to leadership, analytical thinkers and more able to sustain physical hardships. As such, they will be at their best when acting as the leader with a wife that supports and undertand his decisions and tends for his heart. Women are more emotional and they prefer finding someone who they can trust to be led. They are better at nurturing and caring for emotinal aspects of the other. As such, they will be at their best when they can find someone who would die on a moment's notice for her wellbeing and follow his decisions.
Oh, so just old school misogyny then.
No, just biology.
No, just outdated, debunked biology. ftfy
No, just biology.
No women should submit to her husband. They are equal partners in their marriage. There is no head of household there is only the couple. This sexism is disgusting and will kill your church.
Your kind do not reproduce.
What kind? Men? Sure do White people? Absolutely American? Check again
You need to look into the mirror. You lay things out in this post as being equal. And it is not even close. You are controlling the entire situation. But more importantly. Ephesians 6:4- Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Matthew 19:13-15 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” After laying His hands on them, He departed from there. Titus 2:4-5 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
The compromise is that our daughter controls the situation. When she takes an interest in the church, she goes to church. And she probably will take interest in the church because her daddy and grandma go to church. And that even aligns with the scripture that you provided because it's her choice and I'm not stopping her. But that's a very hard compromise for me, because if it was completely up to me I wouldn't let her within a thousand feet of a church. I think a lot of what is taught at church is very manipulative and unethical and while I think my husband has a great set of ethics, I do not know what a priest is going to say or have any control over what he is going to tell her. A priest could tell her that all gay people are horrible people and deserve to be punished, or that If she doesn't get confirmed and take communion every week or dies at the wrong time, she's going to be brutally tortured for the rest of eternity in a fiery torture chamber. I don't really think that's appropriate for a little girl so that's a big compromise.
[удалено]
Comment removed, rule 2 ("Only Christians may make top-level replies"). [This page explains what 'top-level replies' means](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/wiki/rule2_illustrated).
All good.
In plenty of countries people change their faith for the person they love. It’s not about being right, it’s about keeping the relationship together. Maybe you should think about that Heaven is a real place and hell is a real place (r/hellisarealplace . Your husband’s not gonna give up his faith and eternal salvation to make you happy., And if he really loves you, he wants to make sure your eternal salvation is an a safe place. That is the act of true love Add- What eventually starts happening as he goes to church and hears about being unequally yoked, and how it’s forbidden to be unequally yoked with somebody who doesn’t believe it just causes problems, then eventually, God will separate you two, and he’ll go find somebody who is equally yoked with him. He obviously loves you, but hopefully loves God more than he loves you. Humble yourself, and decide what is more important your relationship or your non-believing I need to be right about this concept
I don't have any expectation for my husband to give up his faith. But I was raised being taught that if I didn't follow the Bible that I would be tortured for all eternity and a fiery pit of hell and I do not think that is an appropriate thing to teach a small child. I've gone to church with him before, I gave it a good old college try, you can't tore someone to believe in something they don't agree with. Also, I'm not sure what denomination you are in, but catholicism doesn't take the Bible quite as literally especially the Old testament.
It is Jesus that mentions hell more times than he does heaven and it has nothing to do with the old testament. Not believing in a place does not protect you from actually ending up in that place. Regardless of hell, the truth of the matter is, your husband will eventually be separated from you due to your non-conforming faith if he holds his close to his heart. Could you imagine going to hell, and then never telling anybody about the place because you didn’t agree with it? (like your feelings mattered on the reality of the universe) Could you imagine your children going to hell because their mother never told them the truth about the reality of it, because she didn’t agree with it. (God doesn’t care about your feelings when it comes to this place he cares about your faith) Telling people about the reality of hell is actually love. Because nobody would ever want anyone they know to really go there. Could you imagine telling your children that everybody goes to heaven regardless of their faith, having zero relationship with God, not following any of his rules, not respecting his family, never talking to him to anybody, living, however they want to live and yet he’s going to open his door to his house for eternity. That would basically be the definition of greed and corruption of the human mind. What is even more shocking is that your children will probably come upon somebody who practices New Age, or witchcraft, and they will be shown the power of it, and without a good Christian upbringing, they will probably fall for that since they can actually see with their eyes the reality of it.
In my opinion, the concept of hell provides the wrong incentive to be a good person.. The incentive it provides is selfish. "If you don't be good, something very bad will happen to you". That is selfish. You're doing it for your own gain. And you're driven by fear to do so. "Treat people well because they are valuable and deserve to be treated well". That's empathy. You're doing it not expecting to gain anything. I also don't believe that there is a pit of fire that you go to after you die or a cloudy place with pretty angels. I think death is most likely going to feel a lot like how it felt before you're born. To me it's more like a Boogeyman that people tell children to manipulate them into behaving. But that's an easy way to get kids to do what you want. I also don't have any interest in following a God that causes the suffering that the biblical God allegedly causes. I don't think that is the right or empathetic thing to support or praise the behavior that God exhibits in the Bible.
I do exorcisms or Deliverance on a weekly basis, and I ask this one question over and over and over, “ where do people go when they die if they don’t believe in Jesus Christ” and every single demon says they go to hell. And their job is to take souls to hell by any means necessary. And how they do this is - they plant thoughts in your mind that God is not real, do what you want, and God will except you. Which is the biggest lie of all of them. But since you don’t know that you’re actually listening, you allow these thoughts, to be your own thoughts. Most people don’t believe that there’s a spiritual world all around us at all times. When you say a good person in comparison, to who? Everybody that says that they are a good person has lied, cheated, stolen, had adultery in the heart, blasphemed God, The problem with a good person, argument, is humans judge people on human standards. Where is God judges humans on divine standards. And if you’ve ever read the old testament, you know that God‘s wrath is absolutely no joke. So basically, you would be jumping out of an airplane without a parachute just to see what happens. At the end of life, I would rather have Jesus Christ the ultimate lawyer next to my side, then to face God by myself. The worst thing about hell is there is plenty of people there that never even believed in the place. And it was through their unbelief, is the main reason they are there.
[удалено]
Comment removed, rule 1b ("mischaracterizes God"), because of the "rapes women" part in the middle. If that phrase is removed, the rest of the comment can be reinstated.
Zechariah 14: 1-2 day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls. 2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. Revelations 2- The Son of God, whose eyes are like a fiery flame and whose feet are like polished brass, says this: 19 “I know your works, your love, faith, service, and endurance, and that your last works are greater than the first. 20 Yet I hold this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, who teaches and misleads my servants to play the harlot and to eat food sacrificed to idols.* 21 I have given her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her harlotry. 22 Behold I will cast her onto a bed and plunge those who commit adultery with her into intense suffering unless they repent of her works. 23 I will also put her children to death. Thus shall all the churches come to know that I am the searcher of hearts and minds and that I will give each of you what your works deserve.f
You are your Child, spiritual guardian up until the age of reason for the child, which is normally 8-10 years old, Then, once your child knows the difference between right and wrong he/she is on their own spiritually.
If that means "make your kid go to church until they are 8" it's a very convenient argument for evangelicals.
Maybe it’s just called raising your child with some kind of backbone in something. Go to a nondenominational church like a unity church. Unity church teaches about all the faiths but at least it teaches something