Are you unequally yoked?

[ravenscape]

In Christianity this is one of the more contentious themes in the Epistles - marrying a non-believer. In Islam it's also frowned upon. I'm not really sure how other world religions view marriage outside one's religion, though I think at least some aren't as insular as the Abrahamic traditions.

But, this is real life, and many of us are in religiously mixed marriages and other relationships. Even when a couple starts out in the same tradition, there's no guarantee they'll both stay in that tradition.

Is it a problem? Probably depends on the individuals involved, and the flavor of their particular belief.

So, are you?

Poll to come.

[Pendaric]

Yep.

I found my way to II originally to get support because my wife had just converted to fundamentalist Christianity. II saved my marriage with the ability to vent and get support.

It's still an issue, and it still leads to rows occasionally, but after 5 years we've got an uneasy truce about things and it's the elephant in the room we don't talk about.

[ravenscape]

I'm unequally yoked, too, though it didn't start out that way. We were both agnostic when we started dating. My DH belonged to the original Crossroads Church of Christ as a young teen, and had a rough time getting out of that church, and was turned off religion as a result for several years. The church I deconverted from wasn't nearly that cultish, and my deconversion was pain-free by comparison.

Over time, my DH has refound spirituality and could best be described as a Christian Universalist.

I'm a non-theist social pagan.

[Christina]

My housemate is Lakota Sioux and there are some things like sweats that he participates in but it seems to be more of a cultural and lifestyle thing than a religious one. Whatever it is, it has no effect on me or on how we get along.

[Goldie]

My husband was a baptised mormon who knew very little about any religion. He believed that "The Big Feller" must have been looking out for him.

I was an Episcopalian who was loosing her religion rather quickly.
We both came to agnosticism, then atheism together, and basically without any outside influences. (Meaning we weren't "seduced" by other atheists...hell... we didn't KNOW any.)
Our son is a non-theist, as well.

[Garnet]

We are both atheists. When we first met, I was in the wishy-washy maybe God exists phase. Hubby watched me work through that to arrive at weak atheism. Four months after I arrived in Montgomery, AL I came to a few realizations both because of the activities of some in-your-face Christians and some reading I did in IIDB and another website called the Rejection of Pascal's Wager. As I'm fond of saying, a super saturated solution crystallized over night and voila...I'm a strong atheist. Probably a 7 on the Dawkins scale.

[mac_philo]

We are both atheists/agnostics but my wife is ethnically Jewish. We will probably raise our kids in Reform Judaism for cultural and ethnic and family reasons. If they end up theists, that's fine with me. Reform Judaism does not have any required dogmas, it's more about community and heritage. We're not anti-religious anyway.

[The 800# Gorilla]

I like to beat theists up with their "Sky Fairy Tales."

[Febble]

My husband was catholic when I met him, and I was interested in the catholic church, having been baptised in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, educated at a Quaker boarding school, and confirmed in a High Anglican church. We had a catholic wedding, and I converted a year later, under instruction from a Benedictine priest. At one point the priest asked me what my concerns were. I said "birth control and papal infallibility". He said "well, birth control is one of these issues that demonstrates that popes aren't infallible". So I figured I was OK.

But that was over thirty years ago, and the church has changed a lot since then - or rather, it has failed to change in ways it looked like it might when I joined. I think both my husband and I are probably effective atheists by now, but still steeped enough in the language of the church that it still makes enough metaphorical sense to stick with. Also our son, now 14, says he is not an atheist. Or rather, to quote him recently, says that he believes in God as long as it's spelled with two O's. He wants to get confirmed. So I think we will all keep going to church on Sundays for a bit yet, if only as support for him.

Odd way round, really.

[Ray Moscow]

My wife and I met in church and have more-or-less paralled each other in our religious thinking since then.

Febble, I don't have any problem with "god" spelled with two o's as something to cherish. I just think it's something that we have to create and maintain ourselves, rather than it dropping down on us from heaven.

[Ian Nerr]

I don't think I could have a serious relationship with someone who believed (what I consider) crazy nonsense.

However, I understand what falling in love can do and some people were in a relationship before they deconverted.

[Christina]

I don't think I could have a serious relationship with someone who believed (what I consider) crazy nonsense.

However, I understand what falling in love can do and some people were in a relationship before they deconverted.

Yeah. In over 20 years of relationships before I settled down I never once got involved with a theist. I couldn't even deal with the hippie-woo I was surrounded with. I don't think I would have enough of the basics in common with someone whose word view was so different from mine.

[Febble]

My wife and I met in church and have more-or-less paralled each other in our religious thinking since then.

Febble, I don't have any problem with "god" spelled with two o's as something to cherish. I just think it's something that we have to create and maintain ourselves, rather than it dropping down on us from heaven.

Well, I would agree.

[B Cereus]

I was a sort of agnostic when I met my SO, who has been an unapologetic atheist and skeptic for a long time. Over time (and especially after reading lots about religion, mostly on IIDB), I call myself an atheist without apprehension.

[DMB]

I was a Humanist when I met my husband. He had a sort of residual Methodism, despite having been at a CofE school, but it didn't amount to much. I think that until he met me he hadn't really talked much about things like religion and ethics to anyone. Because argument is the stuff of life for me, I got him arguing pleasurably about all sorts of things, and his religion completely faded away in a short time. Now he is a much more active Humanist than I am, although we still kick everything around between the two of us.

[Lanakila]

I'm a deconverted fundy Baptist atheist who knew what and why she believed what she believed, and knows now why she doesn't believe it. My man is a never really converted to Christianity agnostic. He still thinks Christians are more moral or better people and that religion is good for the most part. But I think it's because he's never been where I've been, and isn't a deep thinker about religious topics type person. We agree to disagree on whether religion is a positive influence for the most part. But since he's an unbeliever too, it's not much of an issue.

[His Noodly Appendage]

My wife was strongly theist when I married her, but is somewhere vaguely in the deist / pantheist camp now. Or something.

'twas pretty stressful there for a while.

[tjakey]

When my wife and I met and where married we were both Christian fundamentalists. It was that way for a long time. The years around our 25th anniversary were a little grim. I had long been moving away from belief and finally, well I simply couldn’t do it any more. I distinctly remember the last church service I sat through, and walking across the parking lot all I could say to myself was, “This isn’t true, none of this is true.”

The next few months were pretty scary, maybe more so for her than me. She had no real idea of what I was struggling with, all she knew was the person she had met, fallen in love, married and was raising three daughters with, was heading off in a direction she could not follow. I was on the road a lot with the job I had at the time, and it got to the point where we communicated (barely) though notes. I thought we were done, that I would come home for a trip and find the locks changed and my belongings piled up on the front porch.

But somehow we survived. Our 25th came and with it the realization that we were really two halves of one person, intertwined in ways we couldn’t even understand. This month is 33 years. We don’t talk religion much. We probably could now, (though for a long time it was a mine field we both avoided) but why bother? Even when I disagree with her I can’t bring myself to say anything that would hurt her. She may be a believer still, and I certainly am not, but we are as “equally yoked” as any two people I have ever seen.

[Goldie]

When my wife and I met and where married we were both Christian fundamentalists. It was that way for a long time. The years around our 25th anniversary were a little grim. I had long been moving away from belief and finally, well I simply couldn’t do it any more. I distinctly remember the last church service I sat through, and walking across the parking lot all I could say to myself was, “This isn’t true, none of this is true.”

The next few months were pretty scary, maybe more so for her than me. She had no real idea of what I was struggling with, all she knew was the person she had met, fallen in love, married and was raising three daughters with, was heading off in a direction she could not follow. I was on the road a lot with the job I had at the time, and it got to the point where we communicated (barely) though notes. I thought we were done, that I would come home for a trip and find the locks changed and my belongings piled up on the front porch.

But somehow we survived. Our 25th came and with it the realization that we were really two halves of one person, intertwined in ways we couldn’t even understand. This month is 33 years. We don’t talk religion much. We probably could now, (though for a long time it was a mine field we both avoided) but why bother? Even when I disagree with her I can’t bring myself to say anything that would hurt her. She may be a believer still, and I certainly am not, but we are as “equally yoked” as any two people I have ever seen.

wow.
That brought tears to my eyes. She is lucky... you both are. :)

[umop apisdn w,I]

My wife was a "lapsed Catholic" when I met her - which means she was a vague deist who, if pressed, would say that she believed the tenets of Christianity but never gave religion a thought in her daily life and never went to Church.

These days, she's an atheist like I am. I don't think I've ever deliberately tried to "deconvert" her, but her following my various conversations and debates online has had that effect anyway.

[tjakey]

Goldie, there is no doubt that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. At the very top of my "luck" list is that I fell in love with Deb and, more amazing, she fell in love with me.

[nygreenguy]

We both were theists when we met, and it turn our we both deconverted about the same time, although shes more agnostic than atheist.

Good thing she did, I could never be with a theist. I honestly consider it a severe character flaw.

[Alethias]

My wife and I were both fundamentalist christians when we met and married. I quit being that over a course of several years which all came together the last part of 2003.

I lost my ability to believe in gods. She didn't. I still love her and she still loves me. She wants me to go to church with her, but she treats me with respect and doesn't push it. I do the same to her. Whether or not I think the christian faith not only errant but downright harmful, part of our accommodation is that we give each other space.

I love her and don't want to be without her, regardless of her faith. We seem to be very fortunate in that she seems to feel the same about me regardless of my faithlessness.

[Zebulon]

We're both atheists for all practical purposes, although I tend to prefer the secular humanist label, and she inclines toward an Einsteinian, nontheist pantheism (there is an ordering principle to the universe, but it isn't a "god").

[Matty]

well uneven in some respects even in most.
I'm pretty full on in my atheism and always have been, my wife has always been Xtian of the CofE type, ie much more about music and garden fetes than the ten commandments, and with an entirely optional belief in God for the most part. She was always veered towards agnosticism and her churchgoing has always been (since we met anyway) purely functional (shes a pianist and organist and has always played with choirs), or traditional (like going with her mom to the Xmas service)

Just recently however she admitted to me that she would class herself as a full atheist these days, and a lot of that has to do with mulling over stuff I regurgitated from IIDB and here and the like. There was also never a question of getting Sam christened , despite her mum being disappointed, which i was also thankful for. That makes me officially the last male in our family to be christened (under duress from my late great gran by all accounts) as none of the kids are .

So we are more equal now than we ever were, although it was never that out oif step, nor a big deal as she was only ever religious in the "be nice to people and dont take it all literally" way. We are still kinda imbalanced in our respect for the church and traditional aspects, she still thinks it has a role and has respect for the (CofE) church as an institution (in some ways anyway, far from all) My take is more along the lines that if every church and minister of all faiths were mysteriously vaporised overnight, even the "nicer" ones, I'd take the day off work and throw a party.

[seebs]

I do not accept that reading of that epistle, so I voted "what the heck".

I think it's pretty clear from Paul's other writings on marriage and relations with non-Christians that, whatever "unequally yoked" means, it's not "married to a nonbeliever".

[ravenscape]

I do not accept that reading of that epistle, so I voted "what the heck".

I think it's pretty clear from Paul's other writings on marriage and relations with non-Christians that, whatever "unequally yoked" means, it's not "married to a nonbeliever".
What does it mean, do you think?

[Pendaric]

14 Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? 15 What agreement does Christ have with Beliar? Or what does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, 18 and I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."

For ease of reference.

[seebs]

I do not accept that reading of that epistle, so I voted "what the heck".

I think it's pretty clear from Paul's other writings on marriage and relations with non-Christians that, whatever "unequally yoked" means, it's not "married to a nonbeliever".
What does it mean, do you think?

I'm not entirely sure.

But:

The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, Chapter 7, Verses 12-14
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.

Paul's own views, perhaps, but his stance is very clear. I cannot reconcile "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife" with the claim that all marriage between Christians and non-Christians is forbidden, or is fairly called being "unequally yoked".

I think it's pretty clear that unequal yoking is a particular relationship -- and I see nothing at all to suggest that it has anything to do with marriage. But even if we granted for the sake of argument that this passage had to do with marriage between Christians and non-Christians, the 1st Corinthians passage makes me think it is a description of a particular kind of relation, not just all marriages.

Think about it this way. Imagine that someone were to write:

Do not enter into an abusive relationship with a musician, who seeks only your financial support and a basement to practice in.

I would not conclude that this passage condemned all romance with musicians; rather, I would conclude that it suggests that a particular kind of relationship (abusive ones) is to be avoided, and the musician may well have been used as an example just because everyone knows one of those.

[ravenscape]

Some Christians use the verses to discourage any partnership or close working relationship with non-Christians, not only marriage. I am still not sure what kind of relationship you think he was warning against, seebs. On the face of it, it sounds like a relationship where people should share a common goal or tasks.

[seebs]

I do not know what kind of relationship it is a warning against. Paul is not always very clear or obvious.

The big thing is, I don't think "with unbelievers" and "unequally yoked" are synonyms; I think that one is qualifying the other. So, I don't think "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers" means that all relations with unbelievers are "unequally yoked" any more than I think "Do not enter abusive relationships with musicians" means that all relations with musicians are abusive.

I don't really know what he was talking about. However, my guess is that the "unequally yoked" thing is at least partially distinct from the "with unbelievers" thing.

The context of the whole passage doesn't help much. I will say, it's definitely not specific to marriage. The argument that it advocates a general avoidance of close working relationships with non-Christians is at least plausible, but it still runs into counterexamples. I suspect it refers to some more-specific thing, but I don't know what.

Paul strikes me as being like the guy who wrote Conan. Can never say "Conan" when he means it, has to say things like "the brave warrior" or "the Cimmerian" or "the sword-wielder" or... Things that, in short, happen to include or refer to what he's talking about, but aren't really exactly it. You're just supposed to know.

[Garnet]

Meh. It simply means that a believer should not enter into a marriage with an unbeliever.

In that, Paul and I happen to agree.

[ravenscape]

Meh. It simply means that a believer should not enter into a marriage with an unbeliever.

In that, Paul and I happen to agree.
I guess it depends on what kind of a believer and what kind of an unbeliever. Despite not belonging to the same faith, DH and I get along fine on spiritual matters, and we're loosely supportive of our kids - just trying to point out when they are trying on or testing belief systems that clearly contradict their own ethical values, and otherwise letting them come to their own decisions.

In talking to couples with children who are not of the same faith, it seems that religious education of the children can often be the sticking point in an otherwise simple compromise. I guess we're lucky to have avoided that pothole on the road of marital bliss.

[seebs]

Meh. It simply means that a believer should not enter into a marriage with an unbeliever.

I don't see how.

In that, Paul and I happen to agree.

I never saw why. I've seen some "mixed" marriages go poorly, but others go quite well. On the whole, I've gotten the impression that the problem is really comparatively minor.

[stumpjumper]

I went with magical brownies but I agree with Seebs that the unequal yoke thing is not talking about marriage...

[ravenscape]

I went with magical brownies but I agree with Seebs that the unequal yoke thing is not talking about marriage...
What do you think it's talking about?

[stumpjumper]

Well I think it is a positive message not a discouraging commandment.

IOW, I do think it is talking about the fact that Christians should seek community and fellowship with fellow "believers".

Christian groups that believe strongly in the power of communion believe this too :)

However, I do not think it is disparaging relationships that do not meet that criteria. Kinda like: "This is where we should be but if you are somewhere else, well, okay but work towards here"....

[ravenscape]

Well, I'll certainly agree that most churches I've attended do want to foster community and encourage the visitors/new members to get involved in the social aspects of church. The ones I tend to like do that on an inclusive basis though, not an insular one.

[Garnet]

I can't imagine, given my current world view and my particular skittishness, spending more than 5 minutes with a self-proclaimed Christian man who also professed a romantic interest in me. I would not let the door hit me in the ass as I scrambled away.

[Garnet]

I don't see how. I think we're at an impasse. I can't see any other interpretation without twisting my brain inside out.

I never saw why. I've seen some "mixed" marriages go poorly, but others go quite well. On the whole, I've gotten the impression that the problem is really comparatively minor.

My experience and my impression is quite different.

[seebs]

I can't imagine, given my current world view and my particular skittishness, spending more than 5 minutes with a self-proclaimed Christian man who also professed a romantic interest in me. I would not let the door hit me in the ass as I scrambled away.

*sniffle*

... But seriously, I guess I sort of understand. I think it depends a lot. There are plenty of Christians out there that, were I non-Christian, I wouldn't even consider romantically due to their religious beliefs and behavior. On the other hand, there are some that strike me as mellow and pretty copable. The same goes for my view of non-theists. There are non-theists whose vehement and implacable hostility to anything that even smells a bit like it might be religious would, I think, be a deal-breaker for a romance. There are others I would date without really worrying about it. (Assuming the spouse didn't mind, anyway.)

[seebs]

I think we're at an impasse. I can't see any other interpretation without twisting my brain inside out.

Okay, let's start from the top.

Where in the passage is the word "marriage" used? Is anything in that whole chapter about marriage? It looks to me like this is a whole long discussion of some other thing, which is clearly not marriage.

So I don't see anything marriage-related there.

I can sort of understand starting from having been told for decades that it's about marriage, then seeing the familiar terms that you have always been told are about marriage, and reading that into it... But I have no idea where it would come from without that prior preparation. The text just isn't there. Nothing about marriage, nothing about romance, nothing about kids, nothing about male/female or husband/wife, nothing. Nothing about families.

Furthermore, I have clear indications of Paul saying something essentially opposite to that just a little earlier.

[Garnet]

I can't do this right now because I've got to go to bed. I may have limited time tomorrow as well. I'll get back to this when I can.

[seebs]

'k. Sleep well!

[Alethias]

I think we're at an impasse. I can't see any other interpretation without twisting my brain inside out.

Okay, let's start from the top.

Where in the passage is the word "marriage" used? Is anything in that whole chapter about marriage? It looks to me like this is a whole long discussion of some other thing, which is clearly not marriage.

So I don't see anything marriage-related there.

I can sort of understand starting from having been told for decades that it's about marriage, then seeing the familiar terms that you have always been told are about marriage, and reading that into it... But I have no idea where it would come from without that prior preparation. The text just isn't there. Nothing about marriage, nothing about romance, nothing about kids, nothing about male/female or husband/wife, nothing. Nothing about families.

Furthermore, I have clear indications of Paul saying something essentially opposite to that just a little earlier.It's not talking about marriages specifically, it's talking about partnerships between 2 people. The metaphor of 2 oxen yoked together is pretty clear, or at least would be to people that have seen oxen pulling together strapped into a yoke.

Marriage is a specific type of partnership, so it applies.

[ravenscape]

I think we're at an impasse. I can't see any other interpretation without twisting my brain inside out.

Okay, let's start from the top.

Where in the passage is the word "marriage" used? Is anything in that whole chapter about marriage? It looks to me like this is a whole long discussion of some other thing, which is clearly not marriage.

So I don't see anything marriage-related there.

I can sort of understand starting from having been told for decades that it's about marriage, then seeing the familiar terms that you have always been told are about marriage, and reading that into it... But I have no idea where it would come from without that prior preparation. The text just isn't there. Nothing about marriage, nothing about romance, nothing about kids, nothing about male/female or husband/wife, nothing. Nothing about families.

Furthermore, I have clear indications of Paul saying something essentially opposite to that just a little earlier.
Then what do you do with a passage like this, where you feel it is impossible for you to know what the writer meant by a phrase? How does it inform your beliefs?

If unequally yoked is a metaphor, it had to be an accessible metaphor to his audience. We know what a yoke is. We know how one is used. So what does unequal yoking look like? Animals that can't pull together because of size or shape or strength differences?

And how does that apply to human beings? If the passages is not about marriage, what is it about? What clues besides the yoke metaphor itself do we have?

seebs, I've seen and I'm sure you've seen cases where the phrase was used to describe other relationships than marriage - but it all revolves around relationships between believers and non-believers. If unequal yoking implies some disparity of ability to pull together, how does that not apply to any non-believer?

[Jobar]

My wife and I met in church and have more-or-less paralled each other in our religious thinking since then.

Febble, I don't have any problem with "god" spelled with two o's as something to cherish. I just think it's something that we have to create and maintain ourselves, rather than it dropping down on us from heaven.

Amen. Well said. :)

I didn't vote in the poll; my present gf is pretty much apatheistic, but since we aren't really 'yoked' I didn't think it proper that I should respond.

[seebs]

Then what do you do with a passage like this, where you feel it is impossible for you to know what the writer meant by a phrase? How does it inform your beliefs?

Sometimes it doesn't much.

In this particular case, I suspect it applies to a particular subset of relations. In short, I think of it as a truth table.

(unequally-yoked) with (non-believer): not-ok
(unequally-yoked) with (believer): ok?
(equally-yoked) with (non-believer): ok?
(equally-yoked) with (believer): ok?

So I have to think more about what makes a particular yoke unequal.

If unequally yoked is a metaphor, it had to be an accessible metaphor to his audience. We know what a yoke is. We know how one is used. So what does unequal yoking look like? Animals that can't pull together because of size or shape or strength differences?

And how does that apply to human beings? If the passages is not about marriage, what is it about? What clues besides the yoke metaphor itself do we have?

Not that much -- but the yoke metaphor applies to all sorts of cooperative acts.

And the thing is, not all yokings are unequal.

seebs, I've seen and I'm sure you've seen cases where the phrase was used to describe other relationships than marriage - but it all revolves around relationships between believers and non-believers. If unequal yoking implies some disparity of ability to pull together, how does that not apply to any non-believer?

Some non-believers are pretty good workers. :) I don't think there is an intrinsic disparity.

I would love to know what this passage is about. I suspect that, as with many things Paul wrote, it is about something fairly specific and he's just talkin' funny, and not being in that church at that time, I have no real chance of knowing what it means. Maybe it refers to a poor choice of real-estate partners.

It's not talking about marriages specifically, it's talking about partnerships between 2 people. The metaphor of 2 oxen yoked together is pretty clear, or at least would be to people that have seen oxen pulling together strapped into a yoke.

Marriage is a specific type of partnership, so it applies.

And yet, Paul specifically endorses, and indeed lauds, marriage with non-believers.

So this must refer to a particular kind of relationship.

[ravenscape]

Then what do you do with a passage like this, where you feel it is impossible for you to know what the writer meant by a phrase? How does it inform your beliefs?

Sometimes it doesn't much.

In this particular case, I suspect it applies to a particular subset of relations. In short, I think of it as a truth table.

(unequally-yoked) with (non-believer): not-ok
(unequally-yoked) with (believer): ok?
(equally-yoked) with (non-believer): ok?
(equally-yoked) with (believer): ok?

So I have to think more about what makes a particular yoke unequal.

If unequally yoked is a metaphor, it had to be an accessible metaphor to his audience. We know what a yoke is. We know how one is used. So what does unequal yoking look like? Animals that can't pull together because of size or shape or strength differences?

And how does that apply to human beings? If the passages is not about marriage, what is it about? What clues besides the yoke metaphor itself do we have?

Not that much -- but the yoke metaphor applies to all sorts of cooperative acts.

And the thing is, not all yokings are unequal.

seebs, I've seen and I'm sure you've seen cases where the phrase was used to describe other relationships than marriage - but it all revolves around relationships between believers and non-believers. If unequal yoking implies some disparity of ability to pull together, how does that not apply to any non-believer?

Some non-believers are pretty good workers. :) I don't think there is an intrinsic disparity.

I would love to know what this passage is about. I suspect that, as with many things Paul wrote, it is about something fairly specific and he's just talkin' funny, and not being in that church at that time, I have no real chance of knowing what it means. Maybe it refers to a poor choice of real-estate partners.

It's not talking about marriages specifically, it's talking about partnerships between 2 people. The metaphor of 2 oxen yoked together is pretty clear, or at least would be to people that have seen oxen pulling together strapped into a yoke.

Marriage is a specific type of partnership, so it applies.

And yet, Paul specifically endorses, and indeed lauds, marriage with non-believers.

So this must refer to a particular kind of relationship.

Harking back to what I learned at my mother's knee, I though Paul encouraged/endorsed "new" Christians who are married to stay married and not put a non-Christian spouse away after converting to Christianity. She used the unequally yoked verses to assert that it wasn't a good idea for an already converted Christian to marry a non-Christian.

[seebs]

That is admittedly a moderately plausible interpretation.

I think a big part of the issue is simply that, having spent a good chunk of time married to a non-Christian, I never noticed any problems inherent to the relationship. I am pretty sure that, in general, when Paul has a point to make, there is a reason to it. I don't believe in arbitrary rules that have no basis. So! I further reject that view because it doesn't make sense. If Paul meant that, it was wrong, but I am not at all convinced that it was what he meant.

I'm still not sure. Reading the longer passage (say, chapters 5-7), I think it is part of a general exhortation to a kind of purity or righteousness. For instance, perhaps to avoid business partnerships with people who would not uphold comparable ethical standards in business.

I am mostly reconciled to rarely, if ever, knowing what Paul was talking about.

[ravenscape]

It's a little scary that he put such a thumbprint on early Christianity and hence upon Christianity in this century, too, if his writings are ambiguous. A few verses from his epistles are used like sledgehammers against social change (I would say social improvement, but I'm no doubt as biased as the sledge-wielders).

[Ian Nerr]

That is admittedly a moderately plausible interpretation.

I think a big part of the issue is simply that, having spent a good chunk of time married to a non-Christian, I never noticed any problems inherent to the relationship. I am pretty sure that, in general, when Paul has a point to make, there is a reason to it. I don't believe in arbitrary rules that have no basis. So! I further reject that view because it doesn't make sense. If Paul meant that, it was wrong, but I am not at all convinced that it was what he meant.

I'm still not sure. Reading the longer passage (say, chapters 5-7), I think it is part of a general exhortation to a kind of purity or righteousness. For instance, perhaps to avoid business partnerships with people who would not uphold comparable ethical standards in business.

I am mostly reconciled to rarely, if ever, knowing what Paul was talking about.

Paul was a jackass.

[seebs]

It's a little scary that he put such a thumbprint on early Christianity and hence upon Christianity in this century, too, if his writings are ambiguous. A few verses from his epistles are used like sledgehammers against social change (I would say social improvement, but I'm no doubt as biased as the sledge-wielders).

Well, one of my favorite quotes:

The Second Epistle General of Peter, Chapter 3, Verses 15-16
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Paul's writing being hard to understand is not a new observation. The problem, I think, is not the mere fact of his writing being hard to understand; it is that his writings are taken as soundbites without any attempt to even address the question of what he might have been getting at.

A very bad choice when you have a writer prone to rhetorical devices!

[Garnet]

Well, I don't have the time or the inclination to delve too deeply into this right now, but I think that Alethias has the right of it. To me, the unequally yoked verse is a clear exhortation not to marry an unbeliever. Alethias brought up the point that it about partnerships in general. If that's the really what Paul intended, then all those believers who holler and scream about not getting involved with unbelievers may have a point.

Blech.

Anyway, IIRC, 2 Corinthians may be a composite of 3 separate letters....and they're not in order. That's one of the reasons it's so difficult to understand.

I had intended to do a more in depth study and reply, but life has a way of intervening. (Hubby and I are trying to found a house to move into. It ain't fun. :( )

[seebs]

To me, the unequally yoked verse is a clear exhortation not to marry an unbeliever.

What in it makes you think of marriage?

That's really the thing I've never gotten.

Just in general, I can see the idea of reading it as a general exhortation against working with nonbelievers -- but I don't think I can sustain that as consistent with Paul's other writings.

[Garnet]

To me, the unequally yoked verse is a clear exhortation not to marry an unbeliever.

What in it makes you think of marriage?

That's really the thing I've never gotten.

Just in general, I can see the idea of reading it as a general exhortation against working with nonbelievers -- but I don't think I can sustain that as consistent with Paul's other writings.

I see what you mean, seebs. As you raised earlier, it may be my indoctrination. What I've been taught has always been that it is about marriage. To me, yoked is a metaphor for marriage, not work partnership. I am not yoked with my co-workers like I am with my husband. There's that whole thing about being bound or harnessed together that points me more towards marriage.

I don't see it as inconsistent with Paul's other teachings about marriage at all. When he talks about a wife staying with an unbelieving husband etc, he's talking about people who are already married.

Paul warns about getting married in at least one other context. It is better to marry than to burn.... In those teachings, he is saying that it is best not to get married at all. It is better to stay focused on God because Jesus will return soon.

Of course, the snarky atheist in me is saying, it's all a moot point anyway...cause...you know...that EoG thing. :p

[seebs]

I think the main reason I never got that is just that, even for Paul, it would seem like a very odd thing to suddenly jump from other topics over to marriage, and then back.

The other parsing issue I have is just that...

If it were "be ye not yoked with unbelievers", I would think it plausible to imagine it to be intended as a general prohibition. The adverb strikes me as a limiting feature, not a definition of a term.

[umop apisdn w,I]

I'm with seebs and Stumpjumper on this one.

I don't think the passage is talking about marriage at all. Given the emphasis on coming out from amongst the unbelievers, and separating yourself from them (implying that the Christians are already "yoked" to them), and the reminder in verse 18 that God will be a father to Christians, I think that the passage is more likely an exhortation to new converts that they should separate themselves from their old (unbelieving) family and friends and live apart in their own community.

Bear in mind that according to some scholars, this section wasn't written by Paul at all, but was a later insertion into his letter inspired by the Qumran community - who did separate themselves from the unbelieving masses and live in their own community in this way.

[umop apisdn w,I]

I think the main reason I never got that is just that, even for Paul, it would seem like a very odd thing to suddenly jump from other topics over to marriage, and then back.

Which is one of the reasons that this is considered not to be genuinely Pauline, but a later interpolation. The epistle reads much more smoothly without the passage.

It also uses different vocabulary to that in the rest of Paul's writings, which is more evidence that it might be a later addition.

[His Noodly Appendage]

As for romantic feelings towards theists - if I ever went back on the market for any reason, I think I'd definitely shy away from believers of any kind.

Much as I'm polyapathetic, it's really not nice never to have a moment alone with your lover. It's really not nice to have to share the relationship with a silent third partner that you can't interact with. It's really not nice to have your marriage vows to each other overridden by ones your partner made to someone else as well.

As for Christians in particular - I'd never have gone there. there's an air of smug, cloying hypocrisy mixed with self-hatred inherent in the religion that I find particularly poisonous. I don't think I could ever have stomached even a hint of that.

[Pendaric]

seebs, I'm curious.

Do you believe Paul's letters should be given the same significance as other books of the bible, particularly the Gospels?

A lot of people quote scripture on the basis of it all being divinely inspired and of equal merit. From what I can see, the only basis for Paul's letters being part of the bible are that he was the guy who won the political battles in the early church - specifically he made the brand more accessible by promoting a version that didn't require it's converts to be circumcised or observe Jewish law. But his opinions were often at odds with the other apostles and it's by no means a unified voice from the early church of the time.

The only reason his stuff forms part of the bible is because of the various councils of bishops voting it in. It's not the words of Christ, and to mean it's more like just reading one person's take on it - why do you particularly believe that Paul was more correct than the other apostles? Do you accept the fact that on a lot of stuff he might just have been flat wrong, and there is no point in defending some of his words?

[Alethias]

Of course, the snarky atheist in me is saying, it's all a moot point anyway...cause...you know...that EoG thing. :pYeah. I'm in the weird position of having all these years of training and study that enable me to argue doctrine, and just not caring.

[Garnet]

Of course, the snarky atheist in me is saying, it's all a moot point anyway...cause...you know...that EoG thing. :pYeah. I'm in the weird position of having all these years of training and study that enable me to argue doctrine, and just not caring.

*grins* I don't have a whole lot of knowledge, but I know what you mean.

[seebs]

seebs, I'm curious.

You are!

Do you believe Paul's letters should be given the same significance as other books of the bible, particularly the Gospels?

I don't know how to answer. I'm not sure how to assign significance to the text in general; I don't think it's all one thing.

A lot of people quote scripture on the basis of it all being divinely inspired and of equal merit.

I think they are silly.

From what I can see, the only basis for Paul's letters being part of the bible are that he was the guy who won the political battles in the early church - specifically he made the brand more accessible by promoting a version that didn't require it's converts to be circumcised or observe Jewish law. But his opinions were often at odds with the other apostles and it's by no means a unified voice from the early church of the time.

Sure. I think, though, you underestimate the relevance of why he won some of those battles -- part of it is that he was persuasive and at least sometimes good at communicating. I get the feeling that, given a modern keyboard and a word processor, he would have been one of those people who writes 150wpm.

The only reason his stuff forms part of the bible is because of the various councils of bishops voting it in. It's not the words of Christ, and to mean it's more like just reading one person's take on it - why do you particularly believe that Paul was more correct than the other apostles?

I don't. I just think he was more quotable, or wrote more.

Do you accept the fact that on a lot of stuff he might just have been flat wrong, and there is no point in defending some of his words?

I think it is possible that he was wrong, but I'm not yet convinced much. Actually, that's not quite fair; I think a decent case can be made for 1 Romans containing a speculation on the origins of homosexual behavior, which I think would be wrong.

I have found that, often, the things I thought were "just plain wrong" were also textually problematic in other ways, and that resolving these led me to view them in ways that meant something different, and which I found useful and constructive for thinking about some issue.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Seebs, given that you simply reinterpret passages until they seem right to you, I can't say it surprises me that you don't think he was wrong about anything...

[seebs]

Seebs, given that you simply reinterpret passages until they seem right to you

I don't think this characterization is either accurate or conducive to a discussion that could ever lead anywhere useful.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Reread your last paragraph. That's what you said.

[Alethias]

Seebs, given that you simply reinterpret passages until they seem right to you

I don't think this characterization is either accurate or conducive to a discussion that could ever lead anywhere useful.

What is the difference betweenreinterpret passages until they seem right to you, andthe things I thought were "just plain wrong" were also textually problematic in other ways, and that resolving these led me to view them in ways that meant something different, and which I found useful and constructive for thinking about some issueI'm not seeing how one is much if any different than the other. I think sometimes it's helpful to clarify my thinking to see how others view my words. I would think, seebs, that given what you said, that you might find it useful and constructive to think about HNA's perception of your words...

[His Noodly Appendage]

Perhaps mine was textually problematic...