Are relationships between believers and non believers difficult?

[FritzDonovan]

I have never believed in God, my Dh didn't when I met him (both science graduates), although has always been interested in the philosophy of religions. He has been attending church on and off for a number of years, which I have never prevented. Recently he has said he now believes in God and finds it hurtful that I don't want to go to church with him. I feel we are growing apart fundamentally because of this new belief of his, and do worry how it will impact on us/family in the future.
Anyone got any words of wisdom beyond accompanying him to church? (we have limited free time together, I find church v boring and preachy, it isn't for me at all. No offence to anyone intended)

I also get the impression that women are more likely to yearn for the sensation of being anchored into the world through a shared worldview. Men seem less troubled by the notion of being with someone who holds views that are in conflict with theirs.

Quite possibly. It is not just in this area, I feel he is growing less likely to consider me when making decisions (even small things), and don't know if it is wrapped up in him developing a new, different view on who he is, which ultimately does not seem to include me so much nowadays.

You might find Dale McGowan's book In Faith and in Doubt helpful reading - all about relationships of this kind and what makes them succeed and fail.

I am going through this. When we met, whilst spiritual, my husband was not religious. Over time though he talks about religion more and more. What I struggle with the most is him talking to our children about God. He doesn't ever make it clear that it's his opinion. And whilst I am very anti religion, I don't want to completely bash it and make them intolerant to others beliefs but i feel my beliefs are being side lined.

He's not actually joined a particular religion though and he does know that it could well be a deal breaker for me if he does as being apart of a religion would not be compatible with my beliefs in anyway and I am not willing to compromise on the differences that I could well be expected to.

unicorn, mine has shown interest in other religions over the years... Finally settled on believing in the Christian god. I am the same as you for not bashing any religion when talking to the kids. I have always tried to be fair concerning his 'belief', but do not see why he believes it is fair if he is upset I (and at least one of the kids) don't share his belief. Isn't it just as legitimate for me to be upset he doesn't share mine anymore? Yes, agree it feels like you are being side lined. And Christians are meant to be forgiving and tolerant.
What differences are you expecting to be asked to compromise on? Our Sunday morning is now him at church with me and kids at home, unless I have arranged a specific outing. He shows no interest in organising anything for us to do as a family in this time, as I assume he would prefer to be at church. Again leaving me to arrange family stuff while he appears disinterested.

There seem to be quite a few people at my church whose partner never attends so I think it can work. I guess it depends how tolerant they are of each other's belief. I can understand that both sides could feel hurt if their partner said horrible things about their belief/views. Its different I know but I can feel hurt or upset when people I don't even know say such awful things against my religion on the impersonal internet so if it was coming from someone I loved that would be awful.
Have you had a good sit down and chat together? Perhaps in a neutral environment/public place where neither of you can get too het up?

campfire I don't say awful things. I have talked with him but we have completely different views and neither will change the opinion of the other. I just don't get how he can be hurt I don't agree with him, while I shouldn't be hurt that he doesn't agree with me, iyswim. It seems that puts his opinions as more important than mine, while both should be equally valid.

jess thanks for the recommendation. Is it written by a person of faith? Or is it unbiased?

Fritz - he believes in all the abrahamic religions as being the same God and likes to research the history of all the texts to find similarities and differences and try and find the 'true' religion within this.

I don't mind if it's purely from a historical view as I can see that it is interesting from a historical political view. But it's going further than this.

If he had been apart of a religion when we met, I would have been able to make an informed decision if I wanted to be with him (probably wouldn't have) but I feel that that was taken away from me.

I've always been very adamant my kids will not be brainwashed with religion from a young age but can make a choice themselves as they grow up. Now this isn't happening either. I find my 4 year old saying things about how God made everything and I literally cringe and feel like a bitch telling him that no he didn't... So instead just keep my mouth shut but it's honestly building resentment.

DH and I have different views, but neither of us try to convert the other, and neither of us are 'hurt' by the other having different beliefs, so it has never been a problem in the 25+ yrs we've been together. He was always happy for me to take the dc to Church (enabling him to lie in ) as he figured that him being brought up in the Church never 'brainwashed' him and that aspect never worried him. I've never tried to make him come to Church other than our wedding and the dcs Christenings (well, I didn't have to make him - he was very happy to be there).

unicorn same re kids here. I didn't have a problem with him taking them to church when they were young, but also told them I didn't believe in god if asked. Now that the oldest (10) has decided they don't believe either, and youngest doesn't want to go by themselves because Sunday school (or whatever) is boring, he's got the hump about me saying they don't have to go. Again, seems to me to be a double standard about ppl being able to make their own free choice. He wants the family to be part of something they don't believe in. Don't see how that would be any different to me expecting him to participate in my Saturday morning craft class (which I don't actually do, just an example ).

backforgood were your dc always happy to go?

Is it written by a person of faith? Or is it unbiased?

OP do you think: No faith = Unbiased?

As soon as I posted that I knew someone would pick on it...well done dionne. Most things I have read so far (not on this thread) suggest the non believers need to compromise to adapt to the believer, rather than the other way round which is why that was my first thought. I do not necessarily think no faith = unbiased. I do believe it seems to be no faith = more compromise though.

I'm finding it difficult to understand what you want out of this thread OP. You've had several responses from people in mixed-faith relationships, some saying that both sides can compromise and it is possible to thrive; some saying it is very difficult and a source of tension and unhappiness.

The answer to your question is 'no, it doesn't have to be, but it is sometimes'. But my sense is that this is not what you really want. You really want to be validated in your feelings of hurt and anger that your partner has found a faith that you not only do not share, but positively do not agree with. You want to be affirmed that you are right to be offended that he wants you to share his new-found faith, and that he might want his kids to share it. You want to be backed up in your views of what religion is; and you want to be assured that you are right to have no compromise.

DH occasionally dabbles in religion. But he keeps it to himself and doesn't seem to want to take any of the rest of the family with him. My attitude is to take an interest, but I confess I sometimes just crack a joke about it. I think it sounds like your DH is expecting too much for you to just think the same way he does. Lack of empathy and tolerance. And it doesn't make sense to be hurt really. Unless unconsciously he feels hurt about something else and the religion is a smokescreen.

Niminy my question stands as to what I was asking about. You must know me better than I know myself, obviously !
I appreciate views from both sides, especially from those who have made it work. I have also ordered the recommended book to help me understand the issues arising. If you like to think I am only looking for validation of my 'hurt and anger', and that I am 'offended' that he has found religion you are reading more into it than there is.
And BTW, I have already compromised on plenty of things regarding his journey through finding his religion.

Turning to the Bible, here’s St Paul on the wisdom of getting together with non-believers.

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

2 Corinthians 6: 14 – 15

And here is St Paul on the status of the children of believer/non-believer unions.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

1 Corinthians 7: 14

Thanks outwith, not sure exactly what you were intended to illustrate with those quotes though, unless it was the fact that the bible itself gives opposing 'advice'? (Did find the first quote a bit disturbing...)

Fritz I think it would have been wonderful if St Paul had been able to write, 'Feel free to marry non-believers. They are good people too.' But he didn't - and that has opened the door to the possibility of demonising those with a different worldview. I agree that it is a disturbing passage.

What is significant to me in the second quote is actually that the children of two non-believers are to be regarded as unclean. I know this word 'unclean' has a particular meaning in religious texts but I am left feeling uneasy by this sort of 'othering' of people who do not belong to the 'tribe'.

You could argue about how influential these passages are nowadays. But certainly there are some more traditionally-minded Church groups who do still think that a moral non-believer is a contradiction in terms.

In such circumstances, a non-believing partner could end up feeling rather demoralised and sidelined.

The op is not stopping her partner going to church, or being 'hurt' by his beliefs. All the intolerance and 'hurt' is on his side.

He needs to be able to cope with the billions on the planet who dont share his belief. That is tolerance and understanding. Which I thought was in Christianity. Am I wrong?

Outwith, to understand those passages you have quoted you really need to learn something g about the context Paul was writing in. He was writing in a world in which there was a strict separation between Jews and Gentiles - marriage between the two was forbidden - and most of the early Christians were either Jews or Gentile Greeks who were attracted by Jewish teachings.

Paul is on the one hand addressing the need for the fledgling Christian community not to lose its specialness - after all they were living in a place and time (first-century Corinth) where a pick and mix attitude to religions was normal and where Jews' and Christians insistence on the one God and holy living was regarded as weird at best and dangerous at worst. Paul is trying to get the early Christians to hold themselves apart from this context and not be corrupted by its temptations.

In the second passage he is addressing questions about what happens when Jews marry Gentiles (as the new Jewish Christians began to do once their number began to include Gentile converts, Christians who had never been Jews). The status of their children would have been a big issue for Jews in such a marriage because the Jewish law required separation and circumcision as a sign of holiness, and Paul talks about this issue a lot in different ways throughout his his letters. Would children of a mixed marriage be Jews? Would they be holy?

Paul is trying to reassure these anxious early Christians - who were, let us not forget, risking being outcast s from the Gentile majority as well as the Jewish community- that their choice to become followers of Jesus would not be a loss but instead a wonderful gain.

That's what is so wrong about proof-texting - quoting isolated passages out of context and applying them literally to a contemporary situation. You end up getting both the passages and the situation completely wrong.

So what then can we say (as Paul so often said)? Perhaps that marriage between people with profound differences is difficult and will change them both, because when we marry we share what we are with another person (that is why intermarriage was forbidden for the Jews). But perhaps also that a one person's faith, their prayers and their actions, may have effects on the rest of their family - may, indeed be a blessing to them, whether they share that person's faith or not.

Do not be fooled, people. Read it again. It's cruel.

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?

OP, I am in a relationship with an atheist and we haven't really had to compromise. We each have seperate interests and I think that is how he sees my church attendance. He goes on Christmas Eve because he likes to sing loudly. I never asked him to. Neither of us try to convince the other to change.

I had a similar set up with my ExH, until he decided one day that I was wrong and began to lecture amd harangue me. Telling me that unless I was a slave owning, homophobe I couldn't be properly religious. He also repeatedly called me a canibal and would regularly insult me and try to start arguements. He stopped seeing me, he chose instead to see religious person as defined by Richard Dawkins.

My DP sees me and I see him. We do look at eachother as believer and atheist. I think this is the key to making such relationships work. Good luck.

We don't look at eachother....
Doh

Outwith, please do look at the context; and also a more modern translation. Here is that passage in the New Standard Revised Version - widely taken as the standard, accurate translation of the Bible:

Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Beliar? Or what does a believer share with an unbeliever?

In Paul Righteousness always means 'living in accordance with God's law'. So the passage is all about the difference between those who follow God's law and those who don't, between those who follow the light of the world and those who are still in darkness, and between those who follow Christ and those who serve false gods.

And bear in mind that Paul has just been talking about the cruelties inflicted on the early Christians by the authorities :

as servants of God we have commended ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger;

For these early Christians we're put in great danger by their faith, but Paul urges them to repay this treatment with

purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, holiness of spirit, genuine love, truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; in honor and dishonor, in ill repute and good repute.

Then he goes on to ask what partnership there can be between believers and unbelievers - in the context of a situation where believers are being persecuted for being followers of Christ.

When you read the passage in context, and in a good translation it doesn't appear so cruel. Again this is the problem with proof-texting and cherry-picking.