Pat Robertson Says Christians and Atheists Can't Marry
What to do if you're a Christian in love with an atheist? Religious-right pooh-bah Pat Robertson offers relationship advice:"There is no fellowship between an atheist and somebody who is a believer in God. . . . You've got to go find somebody else. Really. I mean either he changes and gives his heart to the Lord, or you go down the road with somebody else. But there is no fellowship between Christ and Belial. I mean, he's going to be serving the Devil. You're going to be serving God. Just that simple. And there'll be conflicts and fighting all the time. There is no middle ground. There is no peace in that situation."
To read a response to Pat Robertson's comments by the American Atheists, click here.
Pat Robertson Says Christians and Atheists Can't Marry
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes they can.
Lucky for us Pat Robertson had no part in writing the Constitution. Lucky for us he doesn't sit on the Supreme Court or sit in the White House.
Despite what he thinks we as atheists, or for that matter Christians should do, we have a Constitution that says we can. Sorry Pat, you are not our dictator.
- Brian37
May 8, 2009 4:47PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes they do!
It is always a great pleasure to hear from this knowledgable and religious gentleman; I'm just not sure what he is knowledgable about and which religion he follows as it sure ain't Christianity. In a deliberately secular society then interfaith, or internofaith marriages are perfectly acceptable - hard luck Pat.
- Neil
May 9, 2009 10:53AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Can't marry?
First, Robertson doesn't say that "Christians and Atheists can't marry". Whoever titled this clip was wrong on that point. Second, if you'll read the second letter Paul wrote to the Corinthian congregation, chapter 6, verse 14, you will see that what Robertson said was a quotation from Paul's advice to Christians: "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers." For you Atheists (all of whom appear to be experts on what the Bible says), use your heads; if two people marry, and they firmly committed to opposing views, conflict will be the result. Stop bashing Christians and trying reading the source, you battle isn't with Robertson. Your battle is with G_D.
- oldleprechaun
May 13, 2009 11:33AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Battle with God?
Query: how do you battle someone (or something) that doesn't exist? Robertson isn't my cup of tea, but he does exist.
- jackdav36
May 29, 2009 6:11PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
He's right, for once
Pat Robertson is actually correct (though his intent is still wrong). Objective reason and self-delusion - i.e. belief in gods - do not mix well at all. Religion is not identified in the DSM as delusional behavior for one reason only: politics and fear of the tyrannical majority.
- VulcanTourist
May 13, 2009 12:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where is your evidence?
What scientific evidence do you have supporting the hypothesis that politics and fear of the tyrannical majority have influenced the APA? If your hypothesis is true, why did the APA remove homosexuality from the DSM as a disorder?
- ufcarazy
May 13, 2009 12:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No "scientific" evidence at all
Clearly you think you've pinned me in an indefensible corner, but you haven't. There is ample evidence in the public record regarding the not-so-public struggles that have been occurring over the years regarding ANY negative mention of religion in the DSM. There is no " science " involved in that struggle, however, so please don't try to mis-frame your argument in that fashion. The Christian lobby is well funded and well organized, and doesn't confine its efforts to only government and legislation. Its tactics are no less sleazy, manipulative, and disingenuous than, say, Scientology.
I can only find one bit of saved material from my earlier research on the subject; it's a PDF file reproducing a letter of complaint submitted to the Editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry by a Stephen Garrard Post, and published in June 1990. This letter is but one tiny tip-of-the-iceberg example of the backlash that occurs whenever religion is broached in the DSM; I don't know why I saved this and only this, unless I have lost other saved material. I have cut-and-pasted it below:
DSM-HI-R and Religion
SIR: In the DSM-III-R “Glossary of Technical Terms,”
negative religious examples are presented in the entries for
catatonic posturing, delusion, incoherence, magical thinking,
and poverty of content of speech and in seven other entries.
The negative religious examples stand out because, with the
exception of a single reference to politics , the glossary men-
tions no other particular area of human experience. Does this
mean that religion is a sign of mental disorder? After a thor-
ough literature search, I am not aware of proof that in the
religious context there is an unusually high incidence of men-
tal illness.
Negative religious bias in DSM-III-R is present in the en-
try “Magical Thinking,” quoted here in part: “The person
believes that his or her thoughts, words, or actions might, or
will in some manner, cause or prevent a specific outcome in
some way that defies the normal laws of cause and effect
. . . . Magical thinking is seen in children , in people in prim-
itive cultures, and in Schizotypal Personality Disorder, Schizo-
phrenia, and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.” Here, prayer
is placed in the context of magical thinking, which implies a
tendency toward fantasy in violation of what might be
termed the “reality principle.” No mention is made of the
possibility of sane prayer, so prayer generally appears sus-
pect. Prayful people are linked with children and primitive
cultures. This ridicule applies to 90% of the American public
(1). Such insensitivity can only widen the unfortunate gap
between psychiatry and its surrounding culture.
Another entry in the glossary, “Poverty of Content of
Speech,” is also insensitive to religious persons: “Speech that
is adequate in amount but conveys little information because
of vagueness, empty repetitions, or use of stereotyped or
obscure phrases . . . . Example: Interviewer: ‘O.K. Why is it,
do you think, that people believe in God?’ Patient: ‘Well, first
of all because, He is the person that, is their personal say-
ion . . . . Myself, I am pointed in the ways of uh, knowing
night from wrong, and doing it. I can’t do any more, on not
less than that.’ “ This example is the only one offered, and it
is specific to religion. It implies for those who do not know
better that a religious wonldview is typically accepted by
persons incapable of clear thought and speech.
But these passages do not indicate poverty of content of
speech. They can easily be translated into a dialect that the
interviewer could understand. The patient responds roughly
as follows: “People believe in God because they feel that God
is their personal savior . . . . Myself, I go with God, and with
a clear desire to do the right rather than the wrong. I can do
nothing more, but surely nothing less.” The interviewer here
shows no rapport with the inner-city believer who finds hope
in Bible and hymn. Could one expect an empathic relation-
ship with the patient under such circumstances?
Few psychiatrists are trained to understand religion, much
less treat it sympathetically. One wonders how academics
would feel if negative examples were borrowed exclusively
from their sphere? Fortunately, psychiatry does not view ne-
ligious phenomena only through the prism of DSM-III-R (2).
REFERENCES
1. Gallup G: Gallup Opinion Index: Religion in America. Prince-
ton, NJ, American Institute of Public Opinion, 1981
2. Knoll J, Sheehan W: Religious beliefs and practices among 52
psychiatric inpatients in Minnesota. Am J Psychiatry 1989;
146:67-72
STEPHEN GARRARD POST, PH.D.
Cleveland, Ohio
- VulcanTourist
May 13, 2009 1:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More evidence is required
Thank you, but I find it quite impossible to believe that even several letters of complaint are sufficient to persuade psychiatrists. As you may already know, psychiatrists are some of the least religious of all scientists.
I am aware that transgendered individuals have pressured the APA to have Gender Identity Disorder removed from the DSM, and was informed by a professor that the DSM-V will not contain it. Thus, I can believe that one may reasonably hypothesize that a group of non-professionals are capable of influencing the APA. However, I hope you appreciate my skepticism that religious groups are influencing non-religious psychiatrists, especially since some psychiatrists would love to have religious belief categorized as a mental disorder, and especially since you have provided me with only one letter written 18 years ago.
Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that I am not asking for evidence that there are religious groups who don't want religious belief categorized as disordered in any fashion. Individuals who are diagnosed with a mental disorder are typically stigmatized and treated less-than-desirably by the public, so their opposition to this potential diagnosis is sensible. What I am asking for is evidence for a causal relationship between the influence of the tyrannical religious majority and the refusal to list religion as delusional behavior.
- ufcarazy
May 13, 2009 7:50PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
All I got, sorry
All I can tell you at this point is that this letter I referenced is very widely quoted. You can find multiple references to it via Google. I suspect the reason I saved this one thing is because it was in fact demonstrative, the tip of the iceberg that we can't see. I'm not a member of any professional medical or psychiatric associations, so I can't dig up the really good dirt. If a relatively tiny group like transgenders can apply sufficient political pressure to force revisions and back-pedaling, how much more political pressure do you suppose a monstrous majority group like Christian conservatives and fundamentalists can exert? They are well known for aggressively seeking out threats to their belief system and attacking them; that's not just my opinion or conjecture, that's easily verifiable with Google or a library periodical section. These are the same people who create national news coverage whenever a religious icon is removed from a government space or coinage in accordance with the Constitution... how much more aggressive do you suppose they'd be if some authoritative group like the APA tries to directly classify their belief system as delusional? You and I might not have been invited to that fireworks show, but that doesn't mean it wasn't happening. ;-)
- VulcanTourist
May 13, 2009 8:41PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is possible Elvis is alive. Therefore, Elvis is alive.
As I stated in my last comment, it is certainly possible that Christian conservatives have secretly been controlling the APA for the past two decades. A great number of events are possible. It is possible, for example, that religious people are quite in touch with reality. However, Carl Sagan stated, and many anti-Christians after him, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since psychiatrists have historically been mostly non-Christian, and some anti-Christian, I consider your hypothesis extraordinary and lacking evidence. If being delusional means "holding dogmatically to a belief despite a lack of evidence or the presence of conflicting evidence", then I recommend abandoning adherence to your hypothesis.
- ufcarazy
May 13, 2009 9:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Religion vs. Christianity
I'm continuously saddened to see how often these two groups are confused.
There are religions beyond Christianity. Lots of them. Quit confusing the two.
- quantummechanik
June 2, 2009 11:18AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If it quacks like a duck....
That's true, but you're playing semantics. If it's a THEISTIC religion , mono- or otherwise, then it deserves the same criticism I directed at Christianity. Christianity just happens to be one of the least tolerant of even the theistic religions, so it makes a logical specific target for the criticism.
- VulcanTourist
September 16, 2009 6:29PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The DSM-III-R is so last century
Why are you referencing the DSM-III-R? The current standard is the DSM-IV-TR.
http://www.psych.org/mainmenu/research/dsmiv/dsmivtr.aspx
- agadorspartacus
September 16, 2009 5:21PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
IANAP, that's why
IANAP (I Am Not A Psychologist): that is why I referenced the source I did. I don't keep up with those things. I doubt that the distinction is particularly important.
- VulcanTourist
September 16, 2009 6:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Actually, it is pretty important.
That's why I suggested you use the IV-TR as your reference. That's all.
- agadorspartacus
September 17, 2009 4:51PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Have to laugh... and agree
We might not have the same views, in fact it seems we may have the opposite views, but I have to 1)laugh at your response 2) agree with it.
I see it the other way around: that those that have submitted their lives unto Jesus shouldn't be unequally yoked with those who aren't, in this case atheists who I generally find self-delusional on the matter of God.
- sfgiantsfanmike
May 15, 2009 9:00AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The final word
There are many milestones in history where God intervened; Sodom and Gomahara, Red Sea, Tower of Babel and so on. Too bad for the non-believers, you will see Him move again.The next time as a conqueror.
He sent his Son to die on the cross for evil ways and hard hearts. Being wrong will have an eternal price tag. Without faith it is impossible to please God.
Jesus reigns!!!!!!
- CherryHillPI
May 13, 2009 12:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
When?
What a loving and compassionate God, sending his son off to die for the mistakes of the humans he created. I can't wait to be conquered by him, that ought to be a real moving experience.
So when will we see Him move again? A lot of people have come and gone over the years who have believed in the imminent return of Jesus without seeing any signs of his return or experiencing God's wrath.
God's son is clearly our Sun, and God's house is clearly the constellations of the Zodiac. The holy trinity is dawn, dusk and high noon. The end times refer to the passing of the Sun from the current age of Pisces to the next age of Aquarius, as shown in the Zodiac.
The evidence is there, you just have to do your research, as opposed to believing what a preacher has told you to believe without question based on the King James "version" of God's supposed word.
And finally, why doesn't that just infuriate Christians, reading a "version" of God's word that was commissioned by a King? It would be the first question asked by myself to one who believes. My second question would be, "What was wrong with the original version?"
- JEdwards
May 20, 2009 5:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sigh.
"The evidence is there, you just have to do your research,"
If by "research" you mean watching movies like Zeitgeist on the internet , and refusing to open a single scholarly work on the subject, then yes, you'll probably find all of the evidence you need to convince the weak minded.
If you performed real research, you would notice that this claim of Christianity being based on astrology is essentially a dead concept in academia. Real historians and Biblical scholars reject that sort of conjecture as nonsense.
- P-Dunn
May 22, 2009 12:54AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No it's not
There are plenty of ways to please G-d without having faith in something. Lots of people please G-d regardless of their religious affiliation. Christians do not have a monopoly on good.
- quantummechanik
June 2, 2009 11:19AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You make god points
First off I am a JESUS loving Christian
With that said.There are lots of good people out side the church,But as christians we are forgiven!
JESUS died for all! We all have a choice.
And as a American I would not want it any other way!
- zman
June 2, 2009 7:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's spelled G-O-M-A-R-R-A-H
I'm not trying to be a smart ass (well, maybe just a little), but if you're a Christian making references to Sodom and Gomorrah, you should probably get the spelling of Gomorrah correct.
And just for the record, I'm pretty sure god loves everyone regardless of whether or not they believe in him/her. I don't think god is this mean-spirited, judgmental ogre most Christians seem to envision.
- agadorspartacus
September 16, 2009 5:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The party line
Robertson isn't saying anything unusual here -- this has been the Christian party line for 2000 years. Christians are not, according to the scriptures, allowed to marry people of another (or no) faith.
He's not being un-American, and he's not talking about passing laws or forcing people to do what he wants (at least in this clip). He's giving a Christian woman -- who asked his opinion -- the traditional Christian view.
- ChrisB
May 13, 2009 12:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Psychologists agree with Pat
Pat Robertson is reiterating what marriage psychologists have long asserted: that people experience better relationships with those who hold similar beliefs. Is this really news?
- ufcarazy
May 13, 2009 12:41PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
why do we care?
It's Pat Robertson. The guy is 1 part demagogue, 2 parts kook. I can't think of anything he might say that would shock me. I also can't think of anything that he would say that I wouldn't roll my eyes at.
- ToddG
May 13, 2009 12:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Scriptural dissonance
1Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieveing wife is sanctified by the husband.
- acitizen
May 13, 2009 12:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Scriptural assonance...jt
ToddG wrote: "Scriptural dissonance '1Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieveing wife is sanctified by the husband.'"
Of course there are quotations s from the Bible that disagree, but the essential fact here is the Pat Robertson cherry-picks scripture for views that give him power and profit. He panders to the intellectual vulnerabilities of the weak-minded as he always has. The real shame here form the point of view of a balanced discussion is that a transparently defective person like Pat Robertson becomes the straw man for all religion .
For five or six thousand years religion has been one of the paths to wisdom, to discredit all who take that path is unfair, but as long as a light-weight manipulator like Pat Robertson is the smirking face of religion, it's inevitable.
- Joey Tranchina
May 14, 2009 2:38AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I sort of agree
You have explained clearly the image problem that religious organizations have. The quite foot-soldiers of religion do many good things without seeking publicity or requiring conversion of those they serve, and smirking light-weights get all the press. Oh well, Matthew 6:4.
- acitizen
May 14, 2009 10:27AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Read the whole chapter my friend
(this is also in response to Joey T)
Why is it when we quote people or other books we want to be in context but when it comes to the Bible we cherry pick? I mean, if I really wanted to I could point to scripture and say, "It says that there is no God. It says so in the psalms." Of course, that ignores the sentence right before it which states, "The fool has said in his heart."
Now, you cherry pick verse 14 of I Corinthians 7, but disregard the two verses previous in the same "paragraph" of thought. Here's what the whole thing should read:
I Corinthians 7:12-16- But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
So, there's the whole passage you're talking about. And what is it saying? That if you become a believer while married to another unbeliever, by your presence you "sanctify" your wife and children. And, who knows? Your presence could possibly lead to the salvation of your wife and children.
- sfgiantsfanmike
May 28, 2009 8:26AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sure they 'can'..but should not!
Pat is correct in what he said. If a person is a true Christian-which means they obey and follow God's will and Word (the Bible)-then yes, they CAN marry an unbeliever-but NO, they are not supposed to do so, according to God's word. This is more for their benefit, not to make things difficult for them, but to make things easier for them! It is said in the hopes of circumventing problems that most certainly WILL arise if a Christian marries someone who is not a Christian. Obviously an unbeliever will not agree with this, but the Christian and the unbeliever are living in two different 'worlds', as it were, and are looking at everything from two diametric positions. Dark and light cannot co-exist...obviously one cancels out the other-they are headed in different directions-serving different masters and pursuing different goals. Again, God says they are not to be yoked together, not to throw a wrench in our gears of fun-but to spare us the inevitable heartache that will ensue should we not follow this advice. I am a Christian, and I have been married to a non Christian, and I can tell you that just about any Christian on earth (true one) that is in a marital relationship with a non Christian, will attest to the inevitable pain, sorrow, misunderstanding and conflict that it causes. To get up in arms about this fact/comment by Pat is just silly. The only ones who will quibble are those that are not truly Christ followers, and that being the case, you [as an unbeliever] would not wish to be married to a true follow of Him, since obviously following Him is not something you do or believe in. It is in no way saying that Christians are better than non Christians...that is not the point nor the issue. It is merely conveying the fact that the two parties stand on different sides of almost every issue of true importance. Can the two be friends? Sure. Can they live in mutual respect and peace? Sure. Can they -truly be one in spirit as a man and wife? No. There will always be division, disagreement and disappointment. God is trying to spare all involved. Why put oneself in such a precarious position in the first place. God loves ALL people, but not ALL people love Him...trying to meld two people together who view God in such opposite ways is ludicrous.
- watchmanward
May 13, 2009 2:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Robertson is right, for once...jt
For once I agree with Pat Robertson. What he calls "Christians" are members of a cult of Fundamentalism who are committed to belief in obvious nonsense. Trying to raise a family with someone who tells horrible life-hating lies to terrify children is a horrible thing to witness; these cross-species relationships too often result in children torn and shredded in a tug of war over competing idiocies.
People of different faiths Muslims & Hindus; Episcopalians and Catholics; Presbyterians and Jews often make happy couples and healthy families. People of deep faith make bridges between themselves and other human beings out of the love that comes from that faith; Rationalists and Humanists also build bridges of sensitivity necessary for human relationships to florish. Religious fanatics don't blend with with anyone outside their own narrow belief system and soon they find idiotic divisions to further divide among themselves. When you see that "stoned on Jesus" look in their eyes, I advise against attempting a serious relationship; I also advise that it is an excellent time to practice birth-control to make sure you don't get trapped into a cult.
Over time, rigid and deluded people aren't much fun to be with. It's better to leave the religious nuts to marry each other. Anyone who would ask Pat Robertson who she should marry is, almost assuredly, not a candidate for a civilized relationship.
- Joey Tranchina
May 14, 2009 2:03AM
Reply to this Recommend
(5)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Isn't Pat Robertson
the one who thinks he can control the weather, and leg-lift a buick due to his health shakes? I'm so glad I'm Jewish. All of the good parts of religious life, without the worrying bits like hell, damnation, and the devil.
- quantummechanik
May 15, 2009 12:05PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Did he say that?
I've gone over and over the quote and don't find anywhere that he said "can't marry". His was just advice to a particular woman who ask for it. In asking for such advice the woman showed (imho), a weakness in her Faith or at least a lack of understanding. If Mr. Robertson's advice is based on 2nd. Cor. 6:14, the context does not indicate Paul was writing about marriage only. Mr. Robertson himself and his Ministry, often has Yoked themselves with unbelievers. For no other reasons that they sometimes coincide in some issues that are mostly Socio-political and religious in nature.
Marriage between a believer and a non believer is possible and it has happen. Sometimes with a limited success for the belivers in leading their husband/wife to the Faith. Case in point, Lee Strobel now a christian author and writer was an unbeliever married to a believer wife, according to his own admission.
But chances are the same that the unbeliever will lead the believer spouse away from the Faith. So ideally believers SHOULD marry believers.
- Salero21
May 16, 2009 12:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
wrong
Anything that stands between the love of two people is unholy.
- Elfking
May 20, 2009 3:21PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, actually, we can
Well old Pat must not get out much. I am married to a Christian and am worse than an atheist, I’m a non-theist and I can tell you that we are quite happy and PEACEFUL. Believe it or not, my wife actually encouraged me to write my book and even purchased her own copy.
She believes in God and Jesus Christ, attends church when she isn’t working and socializes with many other Christian friends from all over the United States. She was actively involved in Youth with a Mission and is still in contact with many of her YWAM friends. She graduated from one of the oldest Christian universities in Illinois with a degree in religious studies and while we may not agree on view points when it comes to God this does not hinder our relationship. We are able to talk through our beliefs and why we believe what we believe and at the end of the day, we are content to agree to disagree.
What Pat Robertson needs to realize is that LOVE is enough to keep a relationship together. It doesn’t matter what religion a person is, it only matters if they truly love one another. Anything that would come between love is well, just not truly divine.
- dausonlovi
May 25, 2009 6:31PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
As an atheist, I find myself shocked to agree with Robertson, but I think he's right. My experience is that devoutly Christian women want a Christian husband. I've been rejected by Christian women who simply cannot fathom how I can be an atheist. (Giving them Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris has not been successful). Why would I want to be in a relationship with someone who: 1. thinks I'm going to hell, and 2. is going to want my kids raised in a religion that I find absurd. (Don't be offended, Christian bloggers; I find all religions absurd, I'm not singling you out).
- jackdav36
May 29, 2009 6:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You know your right
As a X atheist now Christian I can now say.The atheist is right.Jackdav36 is right on this!
- zman
June 2, 2009 9:03PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A minor point.
Atheists are not necessarily devil worshipers. They don't believe in anything, so by default they don't believe in Satan.
Of course there are people who say they're atheists so they can do anything they want without thought to morality. Likewise there are people who call themselves Christians just so they can feel important and point at others and say "sinner." But I think there are true believers and non-believers in this world. And true Atheists won't worship Satan or anything else.
By the way, Satanism is one of the most boring religions in the world.
- Cheerikiara
June 16, 2009 2:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I kind of agree with Pat on this one
Wow, that was painful but I had to say it.
Can they marry each other? Sure, if they respect each other's values and traditions. For example, if the Christian partner wants to celebrate Christmas and Easter in traditional ways and the atheist parter is ok with it, what's the problem?
But relationships between two people with vastly different world views, value systems, and traditions generally don't work out too well.
It's between the two people. If they're cool with what the other believes, where's the problem? When it comes to human relationships, religion and atheism aren't mutually exclusive.
- agadorspartacus
September 16, 2009 4:42PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
i don't really listen...
to Pat Robertson anymore. he has lost credibility with all sides in his fight against everything....
http://whatisthebible.com/2010/01/25/pat-robertson-curses-christianity.aspx
- carlosbr21 February 4, 2010 6:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Robertson is a Lunatic
Pat Robertson has shown himself to be a lunatic fundamentalist, and to me he has lost any credibility he ever had. Mr. Robertson, you do NOT speak for all Christians . As a Christian myself, I believe in Jesus' teaching that LOVE is the whole of the Law. Your hateful, vengeful Pharisee viewpoint is so off base it's not even funny. Jesus warned us about Pharisees and false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing. Fundamentalism is showing itself for the false and dangerous prophecy it really is. "Not all who come in my Name represent me" is a Bible verse that's worth quoting.
- K in Newfoundland
February 8, 2010 12:06PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.