Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

I just had to turn down a guy who asked for a very nice Colombian ladies address.
The lady is first rate and she's going to make a great wife for some lucky guy.

The guy is young, good looking and has a good job.
The problem is the guy is an atheist.  When I told the lady about it she said flat out No!

She wanted nothing to do with him if they did not share an interest in God.

I told her I respected her moral standing and have give her address to another guy.

Interesting but she told me that that would be a real deal breaker for her friends as well.  I told her that this was uncommon in all the American men that I know.

Seems like it's as high on their priority list as it is with many American men.

Interesting............

As a non catholic, I made it real clear I was not interested in converting as part of a "deal".  But also I made it very clear that I would have respect for differences and I would expect the same.

If someone expected me to adopt religious beliefs that I did not feel sincere about, I would see this as a huge red flag.  By this I mean, if there was an expectation that I convert my religion even if I did not feel a sincere belief.

It is after all a screening process.

I plan on telling a priest that I would like to join, but that I don't feel that any church has a monopoly on God's authority.  I don't know how well that's going to go over, but I've also got a previous marriage to contend with.  Perhaps because my first wife and I were married in a drive through Vegas chapel (okay, not quite drive through, but it was a Vegas wedding mill) I was not technically even married the first time and won't have to worry about the old Catholic no divorce rule.

Good luck on the no conversion rule.  Everyone's different and your wife may not care at all about your religion, but in times of emotional trouble, church can become very important in a woman's life and she just might decide that she wants you to convert after all.  Fortunately for me, I don't believe there is any one "true" church and converting doesn't bother me.

A conversion of the type you are describing would most likely be frowned upon. You can get away with it in most Parish RCIA programs but in a sense it would not be keeping with the spirit of a true conversion.  On the other hand you could have a valid marriage (in the eyes of the Catholic Faith) without the need to convert (your wife could take Communion, your mother in-law would be happy). It would require that your first marriage be considered null and then you and your wife would need a dispensation from the ecclesiatical authority (local bishop) to marry validly. You may be in a catch 22 however as the church may consider your Vegas experience a valid marriage between non-believers.  In this case, a conversion might be the only way to anull the first marriage (see my explanation to Craig in a post below).

El Diablo

Patrick's situation may be more complicated than you think but nevertheless it might be possible.  He and his wife should consult with a canon lawyer.   I consulted with a canon laywer at my diocese when I was considering marriage to a calena who had been married once before.  I  called the diocese and with a few transfers I found my way to someone with a lot more knowledge than your typical parish Priest.  

The first complication is that Patrick's first marriage may in fact be considered valid.  It's only when a non-apostate Catholic gets married in Vegas, that the marriage is not considered valid.  Two non-Catholics getting married in Vegas are presumed to have a valid but non-sacramental marriage.  There may be an out in the case where the non-Catholic converts, in these cases an annulment might be granted under a section of canon law called the Pauline Privilage.  Anyway, I only know these things from my own investigations and so it's always better to get it from a legal expert.

If your reading this Patrick, consider calling a canon lawyer at your local diocese.  You don't need to give them your name and they will give you a heads up on the process and any complications.  You would need to give them a bit of history however. They are church employess, so it won't set you back a dime either.

El Diablo

I think she sees an atheist as a person who is lost.

That's what I got from her.

BTW, I agree with her.  Just MHO.

I think you may find more practicing Catholic or practicing Protestant women through correspondence than through the agency experience however.

El Diablo

I think that certain Roman Catholic teachings could have become a hinderance to many girls in Columbia due to the fact that many Roman Catholic teachings have become more incorrect over the last few hundread years then teachings that are actually based in the Bible. Therefore as you said, many of these girls do not claim outwardly any strong specific faith anymore perhaps out of their own confusion that they found in studying the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. This is of course a theological issue but it can be dealt with.

If these girls are personally seeking to know God more and reading the Bible themselves to find out if their church's teachings are true or false, they can find out how to deal with these kinds of hinderances that have confused them. They can then move on to be more clear in their own beliefs and understandings about God, their purpose and meaning for their life. This will lead more specifically to their being more outspoken about what kind of man they should seek to marry in terms of their beliefs about God.

For an Athiest however, any considerations for even the most basic questions in life such as seeking to know who God is?, why was I created?, why get married?, etc. do not exist in what he wants to accept in his thinking. Why would an athiest want to be married in the first place anyways?, why not be just like the animals? To him he thinks he is no different morally then an animal or a speck of dust in terms of purpose or meaning anyways, so why put on this act and get married?

How can anyone like this woman Raptor mentioned, base a lifelong relationship with someone who basically believes in no meaning, no purpose, no morality, no truth, and no absolutes for anyone, including absolute rules that guide and determine marriage? She made an honorable decision to remain true to one of the absolute and most basic principles that all mankind should hold. I wish her all the best for her future.

Canadian Guy 31

Bye for now,
Canadian Guy 31

Protestantism is a particular branch of Christianity that broke off from the western portion of what is most often referred to as Catholicism today.  Luther who is considered the primary father of Protestant thought, was a 16th century Augustinian monk.  I believe he was still a Priest at the time he nailed his 95 complaints against the door of the church.

Anyway, I'll read your email but I don't believe the events I mentioned in history are disputed or particularly controversial.

El Diablo

"" I think that certain Roman Catholic teachings could have become a hinderance to many girls in Columbia due to the fact that many Roman Catholic teachings have become more incorrect over the last few hundread years then teachings that are actually based in the Bible. Therefore as you said,
many of these girls do not claim outwardly any strong specific faith anymore perhaps out of their own confusion that they found in studying the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. ""

El Diablo responds;  (don't read if you are offended by religious discussions)

While there is a growing Evangelical and Fundamentalist movement in Colombia, the hindrance I was speaking of was not the one you speak of.  The culture is becoming more and more secular and thus I find I have less and less in common with your typical Calena for instance.

Furthermore what you state as FACT is at best open to debate.  You are projecting your own religious traditions and ideas onto a people with a different tradition and one that extends back further into history than your own.  The new testament was not put together by a bunch of Baptists or evangelicals, Martin Luther and Calvin are fifteen centuries removed from these times.  

Historicly it was a collection of letters written by some of the early followers of Jesus.  All the letters were written after the ascension and the last like Revelation are thought among scholars to be written at the tail end of the first century.

The early church, collected the letters and protected them from those who might use them for their own purposes.  One of the first attempts at codifying or establishing a canon of what the church believed were inspired letters, was by St. Irenaeus.  He was the Bishop of Lyons and lived in the second century.  His proposed canon did not contain all the books that are contained today however.  The church did not make any official proclamations about what books constituted scripture until the Church Council of Hippo, in the fourth century.  The council was made up of predominately Eastern Bishops, and it confirmed the canon decree made by Pope Demascus some years earlier.  The church that existed at this time was not that different than the church that exists today.  The same structure was in place that is in place today.  The traditions that exist today existed for the most part then and a person could easily confirm these things by reading the collections of the early church fathers.

In the history of Christianiy, Protestantism is a relatively new branch.  The fathers of the movement, primarily Luther and Calvin, come at Christianity from very different perspectives.  I'm not clear about the history of the fundamentalist or evangelical Christian movements but my guess is that they are primarily a 19th and 20th century phenomenon.  A good evangelical would have very little in common with a good Lutheran or Episcapalian, heck they'd probably accuse them of being Catholic wannabees. (-:

Anyway, I don't particularly want to argue scripture with you or which church is more Christian and which is not, these arguments rarely go anywhere and prove little.  I did want to point out that the history of scripture and it's interpretation, didn't start with evangelicals and fundamentalists.

El Diablo

Now I find that interesting.  Why is that?  I would think it would help you in many ways.

Regards

If one half of a couple is nominally Catholic or nominally Christian and the other half is practicing and a believer, it's not particularly helpful.  In my opinion it's better to find a mate who shares your core beliefs whatever they may be.

El Diablo

I am a male side of the example. I could not accept to marry
a woman who was an atheist, what would my relationship be built upon?

The basis of being an Atheist denys God's existence, any knowable meaning of life, and any moral or spiritual absolutes. These are the kinds of ideas that a marriage covenant is built upon.

Canadaian Guy 31

   My comments to the remarks made are as follows:

"I am a male side of the example. I could not accept to marry a woman who was an atheist, what would my relationship be built upon?"

How about trust, love, and other things that don't involve bizarre beliefs and strange concepts.

"The basis of being an Atheist denies God's existence, any knowable meaning of life, and any moral or spiritual absolutes. These are the kinds of ideas that a marriage covenant is built upon."

The kind of moral and spiritual absolutes that the Jim and Tammy Baker marriage covenant was based on I suppose.  Fortunately, she had the good sense to dump her con hubbie.  The concept of God's existence has nothing to do with "meaning of life" and "spiritual absolutes".  The most moral people in history have either been atheists, closet atheists, or the mildly religious who are liberal and flexible in their beliefs.  As an education for our Canadian friend, this includes Thomas Jefferson (who explicitly wrote to John Adams that he did not believe in the Divinity of Christ),  Thomas Pain, and Abraham Lincoln (mildly religious but with little use for hypocrite churchgoers).  All of these men where accused of being Atheists in their days.  This also includes most of the Swedish who have little use for religion, dogmatic or otherwise, but have a low crime rate and the most honest government in the world.    

"Canadian Guy 31  (Anonymous)"

Have you ever noticed that there always seems to be an inverse relationship between someone professing to take a moral position and their actual state of morality.  I just noticed that in order to state your strong convictions you chose to remain anonymous.  Kind of like Jimmy Swaggart preaching against women who wear shorts.

Why are you so angry?

Dude,
LOL..
This drible is just outright false.

I suggest you stop the propaganda and admit that you do not fit in with Latin culture.

An atheist such as yourself has little hope of finding a latin women.  Perhaps you should look at Russian women.

I further suggest that you move to this Sweden and find Utopia.  LOL.......

Wow that is Good!!

Regards

"Have you ever noticed that there always seems to be an inverse relationship between someone professing to take a moral position and their actual state of morality. I just noticed that in order to state your strong convictions you chose to remain anonymous."

Gee Mr "Smith", your post proclaimed many of your proclaimed absolutes as well and I was kind of wondering if you would be consistent in the end to your proclaimed enlightened state of morality.

Here is your "moral" and "openly disclosed" profile Mr "Smith":

Profile for Richard Smith
Member Since: May, 2001          
Last posted: August 10, 2001          
Total posts: 22          
From: Undisclosed  
Age: Undisclosed  
Interest Undisclosed  
Status Undisclosed  
E-mail Undisclosed  
This member did not provide a self-description    

Gee, Mr. "Smith" want to pass on your address and phone number in there too since you were so honest in being so open about the rest of you!

Regards