Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    Hi Andreas,
    
    The Bible prohibits the marriage of Christians to non-Christians.  I
    have seen the results of such marriages and along with other serious
    consequences, the believer is always stunted in their spiritual growth 
    by the unbelieving partner.
    
    jeff

    I know this is television; however, one of our favorite family shows is
    the Waltons.  Olivia is a Christian and her husband is a great family
    man; however, he is portrayed as an person who is not a Christian.  In
    fact, there are episodes where he clearly wants little or nothing to do
    with it for whatever reason.  
    
    I believe it is possible for a marriage to survive where one spouse is
    a Christian and the other isn't.  I also believe there are many cases
    where the relationship can be an unqualified disaster.
    
    "Be not unequally yoked with non believers, for what fellowship has
    light with darkness...."  You are better of marrying somebody of like
    faith.
    
    -Jack

re .2

i agree jack. mixed marriages can work quite well if there is a strong 
common base of values (some of which may also be christian values, though 
not exclusively christian).



andreas.

re .1

>   The Bible prohibits the marriage of Christians to non-Christians.  

jeff, this is the first time i hear this. where does the bible PROHIBIT 
the marriage of christians to non-christians? are marriages between
christians to non-christians null and void in your eyes? in the eyes
of your church? does the christian spouse who marries a non-christian
live in sin?



andreas.

    As we see in here There are many different Christian Perspectives.
    
    I believe the answer has more to do with what the Christian Perspective
    of the Christian in the interfaith marriage.
    
    Some Christians recognize that there are other valid religions other
    than Christianity.  Some Christians recognize that there are many paths
    to a healthy spirituality.
    
    I believe that for a marriage to work, both partners need to be able to
    fully affirm the other partner.  I cannot see how a marriage could work
    where one partner thought the other partner was going to hell because
    he/she did not believe the same way.  I also don't think a marriage
    would work where one partner is constantly trying to convert the other 
    partner.
    
    In the Unitarian Universalist church, we have many different interfaith
    Marriages.  Since UU's affirm all the world religious traditions and
    encourage all members to spiritual growth in their chosen path, the
    couples involved have a faith community that supports both partners in
    the diversity.

    
    In Paul's second letter to the church in Corinth he states
    imperatively:
    
    "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have
    righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with
    darkness?  Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a
    believer in common with an unbeliever?"
    
    I'd say the language is perfectly clear and signifies that a choice is
    an option, the unmarried, for example.  However, Paul makes it clear 
    another time that believers are not to divorce unbelievers so the marriage 
    is valid in God's eyes.
    
    jeff

    
>    Some Christians recognize that there are other valid religions other
>    than Christianity.  Some Christians recognize that there are many paths
>    to a healthy spirituality.
    
    You mean, some people who consider themselves Christians...  The Bible
    makes it quite clear that only followers of Jesus Christ are Christians
    and that Jesus Christ is only revealed in God's Word, the Bible. 
    Anyone who creates a different Jesus by, for example, saying that there
    are other healthy spiritual paths to God, reject Jesus's strong
    statement that "no one comes to the Father but through me."
    
    jeff

    "You mean people who consider themselves Christian"
    
    
    Jeff, 
    
    are you playing God again!

.6>   "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have
.6>   righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with
.6>   darkness?  Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a
.6>   believer in common with an unbeliever?"

.6>		 			     However, Paul makes it clear 
.6>   another time that believers are not to divorce unbelievers so the 
.6>   marriage is valid in God's eyes.


if paul did say that marriage between christians and non-christians
are valid in god's eyes, would that mean that
- the righteous and law abiding spouse should remain married to the 
  unrighteous and lawless spouse, or 
- that not all non-christians are unrighteous and lawless and hence
  not-believing is not sufficient reason for divorce?

how is the "do not be bound together with unbelievers" supposed to be
understood?



andreas.

I agree with Jeff on this one to the extent that it is difficult if not
impossible for a non-christian to further the christianity of a
christian.

I think this is true of many other situations such as political and
social persuasions.

It's not a good thing of a bad thing, just the way it is.

Now, I do believe that two people who believe in different things can
contribute to each other spiritually but Christianity as I understand it
is not particularly prone to allowing relationship with non-believers.

TTom

    I also agree.  A lesson can be learned from Lot and his wife at Sodom.
    Lot started out by placing his tent outside the walls of the city.  By
    the time Sodom was destroyed, Lot not only had his home within the city
    but was considered one of the chief elders.  A non believer will most
    likely drag you down before you bring them up.
    
Z    I cannot see how a marriage could work
Z    where one partner thought the other partner was going to hell because
Z    he/she did not believe the same way.  I also don't think a marriage
Z    would work where one partner is constantly trying to convert the
Z    other partner.
    
    I see this also, which is why I would not have married Michele had we
    not been spiritually likeminded.  The claim is correct; 2nd Corinthians
    6 does warn us against being unequally yoked with non believers.  And
    by the way, it isn't playing God if somebody tells you they reject
    Jesus and you conclude they are not a Christian.
    
    -Jack

> And
>    by the way, it isn't playing God if somebody tells you they reject
>    Jesus and you conclude they are not a Christian.
    
   Let me repeat the question,   Who is telling you they reject Jesus and
    that they are a Christian.  I've never heard anyone who is a Christian 
    say they reject Jesus!

.6>   "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have
.6>   righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with
.6>   darkness?  Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a
.6>   believer in common with an unbeliever?"

.6>		 			     However, Paul makes it clear 
.6>   another time that believers are not to divorce unbelievers so the 
.6>   marriage is valid in God's eyes.


>if paul did say that marriage between christians and non-christians
>are valid in god's eyes, would that mean that
>- the righteous and law abiding spouse should remain married to the 
>  unrighteous and lawless spouse, or 
>- that not all non-christians are unrighteous and lawless and hence
>  not-believing is not sufficient reason for divorce?
    
    the first of the two.  
    
    The state of marriage does not change the condition of the unbeliver
    who is by definition unrighteous and lawless.
    

>how is the "do not be bound together with unbelievers" supposed to be
>understood?

    Well, It should be understood as it is stated.  Bound is a closer
    relationship than, say, related to or acquainted with, as examples. 
    Bound, in this case, means obligated to or something as demanding as
    that.  For example, a Christian should not go into business with a
    non-Christian.  Or a Christian should not underwrite a loan for an
    unbeliever and so on.  Of course, marriage is one of the strongest
    bindings which exists both before the law and in the eyes of God.
    
    jeff 


andreas.

 ZZ      "You mean people who consider themselves Christian"
        
        
 ZZ       Jeff, 
        
 ZZ       are you playing God again!
    
    This was the context I was referring to.  Consider the following.
    
    "Bretheren, my prayer for the Jews is that they become saved.  For they
    have a zeal for God, but it is not based on knowledge."  For they being
    ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own
    righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of
    God."  Romans 10: 1-3.
    
    By your standards, Paul the apostle is playing God here.  I reject this
    way of thinking because Paul was a prophet and spoke through the
    direction of the Holy Spirit.
    
    There are many who consider themselves to be Christian; however, their
    own proclamation condemns them, not I or anybody else.  Why?  Because 
    Jesus was a teacher to them but not a savior; therefore the
    righteousness of Jesus was not imputed to them.
    
    -Jack

    I've seen this several times in my young life.  Some in my own family. 
    Every single one them developed into a very ugly situation where many
    were hurt.
    
    Mike

re .14


thanks for responding jeff and thanks for pointing me to an interesting
quote.
    
>   the first of the two.  
>   
>   The state of marriage does not change the condition of the unbeliver
>   who is by definition unrighteous and lawless.
    

i must say that i find the idea of unbelievers being by definition     
unrighteous and lawless not very respectful of fellow human beings. 

also the idea of not doing business with unbelievers must be very 
difficult to put into practice (if not outright self-damaging).
in a global marketplace this cannot be the ticket for successful
business making.



andreas.

    <<< Note 1127.0 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>when one partner is a non-believer, is the partnership a priori doomed to 
>failure?
    
    	Not NECESSARILY doomed, but certainly likely to end in failure.
    	Statistical proof is easily found.  The last US census lists
    	differences in faith as one of the top 5 reasons.  And I wouldn't
    	go so far ar to limit the discussion to mixed marriages between
    	Christian and non, for the same risks to marital health holds true
    	between Christians of different faith expressions -- or even of
    	different degrees of practice within the same faith expression.
    	Simply mixing a "Christmas Catholic" (only goes to church on
    	Christmas or Easter) with a Charismatic Catholic might spell
    	doom as the former is overwhelmed by the latter.

>given a tolerant non-believing partner, can the believing partner raise
>the children in his/her faith? 

    	Anything can happen.  Most often the struggle is not on how
    	the kids get raised, but rather in one attempting to change
    	or (un)convert the other.

re .18

>    	Simply mixing a "Christmas Catholic" (only goes to church on
>    	Christmas or Easter) with a Charismatic Catholic might spell
>    	doom as the former is overwhelmed by the latter.

you make a very good point, joe.

staying with your example, i can imagine that a marriage between a
non believer and a "christmas catholic" stands more chances of success
than the one between the "christmas catholic" and the charismatic
catholic!



andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    I don't think conducting business is the case so much as entering into
    a contractual agreement which requires a partnership.
    
    -Jack

    	re .19
    
    	Probably true, Andreas, at least from the perspective of
    	differences.
    
    	I also read that the US census statistics show that the
    	more God (any religion's God) is SHARED in the relationship,
    	the more likely the marriage will succeed.  So, a marriage
    	"in the church" (sanctioned/blessed by some religious entity)
    	is statistically more successful than one not sanctioned, and
    	if one or both of the couple attend church they are more likely
    	to succeed, and if both attend TOGETHER theyare even more likely
    	to succeed, and finally if they pray together they have the 
    	highest statistical success with respect to religion in the
    	marriage.  (This is not to imply that other factors don't
    	affect marriages!)

Is it forbidden for christians to marry someone who is not christian, but who 
they happen to love very much ????

>thanks for responding jeff and thanks for pointing me to an interesting
>quote.
    
You're welcome, Andreas.    
    
>   the first of the two.  
>   
>   The state of marriage does not change the condition of the unbeliver
>   who is by definition unrighteous and lawless.
    
>>i must say that i find the idea of unbelievers being by definition     
>>unrighteous and lawless not very respectful of fellow human beings. 
    
    Unrighteous and lawless are specific terms used to describe the actual
    status of unbelievers.  These terms are used throughout the Bible. 
    Unrighteous means guilty before God.  Lawless means law breakers (the
    Decalogue).

>also the idea of not doing business with unbelievers must be very 
>difficult to put into practice (if not outright self-damaging).
>in a global marketplace this cannot be the ticket for successful
>business making.

>andreas.
    
    I didn't say that.  I can't recall what I said but it was supposed to
    mean "not going into business with unbelievers", i.e. not being a
    partner or "bound" legally by choice.
    
    jeff

>Is it forbidden for christians to marry someone who is not christian, but who 
>they happen to love very much ????

    I don't recall their being any exceptions, Steve.  Romantic "love" is
    hardly a high ideal, our culture's view notwithstanding.
    
    jeff

The passage quoted in .6 (2 Cor 6:14ff) does not refer specifically to
marriage; nor is it an absolute prohibition.

Instead it refers to any contact whatsoever with pagans which might damage
the faith of the believer.

As such, any believer must be careful in any association with pagans, whether
it be marriage, business, sport, or anything else.

It is inadvisable unless the faith of the believer is well-grounded.

However, Paul has already made it clear that a believer may actually convert
his wife or husband through the grace that flows through the common life of
a marriage (1 Cor 7:16).

/john

the way you put it, john (re .25), paul's advice sounds eminently 
sensible. unless one is grounded firmly in what one believes in,
close contact with others of very different beliefs can indeed be 
problematic - for all parties involved.


re .23

jeff, thanks for being more specific. you say that an unbeliever is 
by definition guilty before god and not observant of god's laws, right?
it would have helped if you had used those terms in the first place 
instead of "unrighteous" and "lawless". i was beginning to think you 
think of me, an unbeliever, as a common criminal! 


getting back to the subject, one more question for you jeff.

using joe's definition in .18, is a "christmas catholic" (or 
a christmas baptist/lutheran/protestant etc. for that matter) 
- as righteous and lawful as a charismatic catholic
- as unrighteous and lawless as an unbeliever, or
- something inbetween?



andreas.

.21>	            and finally if they pray together they have the 
.21>	highest statistical success with respect to religion in the
.21>	marriage.  

i believe that.

if both partners can reach such a level of intimacy and trust to be 
able to share their personal prayers, this must make for a very strong
union!

maybe this would be a good idea even for non-religious couples; ie. to 
set aside a regular time each day for sharing eachothers most personal 
thoughts and worries.




andreas.

>getting back to the subject, one more question for you jeff.

>using joe's definition in .18, is a "christmas catholic" (or 
>a christmas baptist/lutheran/protestant etc. for that matter) 
>- as righteous and lawful as a charismatic catholic
>- as unrighteous and lawless as an unbeliever, or
>- something inbetween?

>andreas.
    
    	I wouldn't use church attendance records as the primary indicator
    of a person's spiritual status (saved or unsaved). Remember, actual
    righteousness is imputed to the believer by Christ.  A true Christian
    wants to be godly and wants to obey the Law.   
    
    No doubt, those not hearing the Word preached, not fellowshipping with 
    other  believers and not serving Christ through their church are 
    spiritually dull and weak.
    
    jeff

.24 Benson

Jeff,

Just to keep the record straight, your reply was to a note by Marco, not me.

    
    Oh, yes.  Sorry Steve.  I saw that long IP address and since the
    participants here are few, just thought it was you.
    
    jeff
    
    

   <<< Note 1127.27 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

> if both partners can reach such a level of intimacy and trust to be 
> able to share their personal prayers, this must make for a very strong
> union!
    
    	Reaching this level was for me as emotionally frightening/exciting,
    	or even more so, as my wedding night.

> maybe this would be a good idea even for non-religious couples; ie. to 
> set aside a regular time each day for sharing eachothers most personal 
> thoughts and worries.

    	This is the major point of Marriage Encounter.

    .25
    
    I basically agree with John Covert on this.
    
    Marriage can be difficult even when a couple has a lot in common with
    each other.
    
    Paul, as I recall, preferred that people not marry at all, if possible.
    
    Richard
    

 Z   Paul, as I recall, preferred that people not marry at all, if
 Z   possible.
    
    I think what he was pointing out that if you are going into the mission
    field, ideally you are better off single as you will be able to devote
    all your time to the cause.
    
    -Jack

    
	 RE: .1 Jeff.

	> ... and along with other serious consequences, the believer is always
	> stunted in their spiritual growth by the unbelieving partner.

	You're reply contained no 'IMO' or 'I believes'

	I am a non-Christian and am happily married to a "good Catholic" for
	close to 30 years. I resent any suggestion that I have in any way
	stunted her spiritual growth or that other "serious consequences" 
	have arisen from our relatioship.

	In fact, the contrary is true. Through me she has learned to love and
	appreciate the Bible and has gained insight into many of the texts
	which were previously a mystery to her. Where she felt doubt, she
	has taken her problems -- encouraged to do so by me -- to her priest
	and has found her previous faith solidified.

	We have gone hand-in-hand through many difficulties over the years
	and have both grown as a result. And I would wager that I feature
	more often in her prayers than your average run-of-the-mill Christian
	husband of a Christian wife.

	In Austria, at least, proportionally about 8 time more un-mixed 
	marriages go down the drain than mixed. But I admit, the "mixed"
	sample may be too small to be significant.

	By the way, you, and several others, seem to equate non-Christian
	with non-believer. I am never quite sure if this confusion arises
	from arrogance, sufferance or ignorance or some intermedi-ance, but
	they are most definately not synonymous: I am a case in point.
	
	1127.14

	> The state of marriage does not change the condition of the 
	> unbeliever who is by definition unrighteous and lawless.

	Well at least you have made it clear -- to me -- which "ance" is
	to be applied to you. Your later (.23) explanation, putting it all
	down to the Bible, is not worth a mite to those who do not accept
	it as being the unerring word of God. In my scheme of things, I am
	neither unrighteous nor lawless. IMO, you came closer to lawlessness
	by this slander, than I have been for many a long day.
	
	By the way, unbeliever is again a different term, not synonymous
	with either non-believer or non-Christian. It should surprise noone
	that the Christian world is in such chaos when some of their most
	ardent supporters are not even sure who they are persecuting.

	Greetings, Derek.

      Hi,
    
        My wife and I were both unbelievers when we were married over
        14 years ago.  Just two and a half years later, I became a 
        Christian.  My wife became a Christian one year ago (or about
        11 years after me).
    
        I can say that it was really tough.  For me to interact with 
        my wife, I often did things I otherwise wouldn't do.  Things 
        like watch TV.  The things I wanted to do, my wife didn't.  The
        most important thing to me was spiritual ype things and here my
        wife was 100% uninvolved.
    
        It was just really hard.
    
        Now that she's a Christian, things are so much better!
    
        Now our greatest source of difference is our greatest source of
        similarity!
    
    							Tony

If we're talking about giving advise to a couple considering marriage, or
taking advise you, the reader, is considering marriage (key word = ADVISE), 
then  don't bother reading the rest of this reply.  If we're talking about 
deciding if "Mixed Marriages" are right or wrong for others, then read on....


Man oh man... what's happened here?  

Who the hell adorned any of us with the robes of a judge?

I'm certainly no authority on Christianity or the Bible, but a couple of the
main themes that pop into mind are tolerance and unconditional love.  If two
people love each other, who the hell are we to pass judgement on that. 
Judgement is something "supposedly" left to a higher authority.  And love is
supposedly something which comes from that same authority. PERIOD!

"Mixed Marriages"... Heaven Forbid? And don't bother ponting out some obscure
passage in the Bible which forbids such practice.  The KKK's been doing THAT 
for years when in comes to "Mixed Marriages" of another kind.  Point being that
you can find biblical justification for just about anything if you look hard
enough and "interpret" ~hard enough~.

How many good relationships have been trashed because of this sort of religious
"guidance"?  (I was going to use the words "religious bigotry" but decided not
to chance offending anyone)  The parents/families, churches, whoever...
pressure the couple to break up and succeed in destroying love.  Great!  Can
you think of anything more non-Christian.  If it's a mistake, then it's their
mistake, something to learn and grow from.  Advise if you will.  Point out
biblical passages or whatever.  But don't pressure AND accept/support whatever 
happens.  And who knows?  It may just work out!  

Hurrah to .34 !!! Love (God) prevails!!!! I'm assuming that the "mix" we're
talking about here is Jewish/Christian because the common thread was the Bible.
I have a Christian friend who was engaged to Jewish fella.  They were both very
monogomous (my friend a devout Catholic and he a devout Jew) very much in love
and wanted very badly to be married and share their lives together.  Pressure
from "the church" and the "rabbi" and "the parents" etc... wedged them apart at
the 11th hour.  They were both emotional wrecks for a long long time and still 
can't bear to consider "what if" for very long without choking up.  They both
married other people.  My friend married a jerk who's cheating on her, doesn't
even bother to hide it anymore and just doesn't care.  (She "chokes up" and
"breaks down" a lot more when she considers the "what if" scenario).  But 
divorce is also such a taboo that she won't even try to get out.  But! the 
dreaded "religious mixing" was avoided and I suppose all the players can feel
happy about that, right?

As I said, I'm no ardent believer, but I do admire and practice much of the
wisdom I've read in the Bible, the New Testament in particular.  When it comes
to matters like this where I'm puzzled, I try to picture a scene where JC
himself walks in at the height of the controversy.  There they'd be, the young
couple, clutching each other while their relationship was being attacked on all
sides.   And there all around them are the finger wavers... "You Shouldn't do
this..." "I forbid you to..." "It's written that..." "You'll burn in Hell if
you..."  etc... . And what do you think Jesus would say to the couple when he
walked in?   "OK you two, stop loving each other.  I know, I know, I told you
it's cool a million times and in a million ways, but Paul's going to write a
sentance or two some years from now which might be interpreted otherwise, so
just stop it OK?  And besides Sally, he's not of your faith... therefor a
sinner.  And you know better than to associate yourself with *sinners* (YUK) 
much less *love* or marry them." ....NOT!  Now, what words of wisdom do you 
think he might have for the finger wavers there in the room?  I wouldn't want 
to be there when that shit hit fan!


-dave

.35

It's always easier if you agree. Both my wife and I are non-believers, and I 
suspect it would destroy the marriage if one of us suddenly became 'born 
again'. 

On the other hand, it would probably destroy the marriage if I suddenly joined 
the Hells Angels also, so this is not purely a religious thing...

Steve

re .36


a very good note, dave!

mixed marriage? if your two friends, the devout catholic and the devout 
jew, had married, as i see it, that may not necessarily have been a mixed 
marriage. as you described, they have so much in common, a devotion to a 
religious life and life-style, they don't sound too different at all.
i mean, judging from the differences we get to read about in here, there 
are worlds of differences even between followers of the same faith. so
what's faith on its own to go by?

but have you ever thought about how a marriage might work out between
a really quite religious person (of any faith for that matter) and a 
non-religious person? that's actually what i'd consider a mixed marriage.
here, what may be essential to one (ie. religion) is unimportant
to the other. and if there isn't an awful lot of common ground otherwise.
this mix could get problematic. don't you think?




andreas.

re .34


derek, my mother was quite religious and my father was an atheist. 
in fact, i can't recall ever hearing my father say anything on the 
subject of religion. that didn't seem to matter though. what mattered 
was that his love for his wife was so great that he accompanied us to
church and that he loved to see his children gathered around his 
wife whilst she read to us from the bible.



andreas.

    Re .39 Andreas.
    
    I, too like to go to church with my wife and we also have the priest
    to dinner occasionally.
    I also enjoy goning to other religious services, too. Having no
    confession removes any barriers. This is one of the reasons that my
    wife's religion is enriched by her marriage to me: I offer perspectives
    which, in other circumstances, your average Roman Catholic does not
    see.
    
    We wouldn't want it any other way.
    
    Greetings, Derek.

RE: .36


	VERY good note!

    
    When it comes right down to it in the end, I know for certain that a
    marriage between Jeff Benson (if he were single, which he is not) and
    myself, would probably last, oh, a couple of nanoseconds.
    
    So maybe there is some wisdom in this position after all.  Yes?  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    I'm involved in a mixed marriage of another kind.

    It Matters What We Believe
                 by Sophia Lyon Fahs
    
Some beliefs are like walled gardens, They encourage
     	exclusiveness, and the feeling of being especially privileged.
Other beliefs are expansive and lead the way into wider and deeper
     	sympathies.

Some beliefs are like shadows, darkening children's days with
     	fears of unknown calamities.
other beliefs are like sunshine, blessing children with the warmth
     	of happiness.

Some beliefs are divisive, separating the saved from the unsaved,
     	friends from enemies.
Other beliefs are bonds in a universal (community), where sincere
     	differences beautify the pattern.

Some beliefs are like blinders, shutting off the power to choose
     	one's own direction.
Other beliefs are like gateways opening wide vistas for exploration

Some beliefs weaken a person's selfhood.  They blight the growth
     	of resourcefulness.
Other beliefs nurture self-confidence and enrich the feeling of
     	personal worth.

Some beliefs are rigid, like the body of death, impotent in a
     	changing world.
Other beliefs are pliable, like the young sapling, ever growing with
     	the upward thrust of life.
						Sophia Lyon Fahs
							
    
    
    THis is relevent to the question.  It is not the particular Faith that
    determines whether people of different Faiths can be compatible, but
    the way of believing.
    
    Beliefs that "are expansive and lead the way into wider and deeper
    sympathies" are enriched by the sincere Faiths of others(even sincere
    atheism).  Mixed marriages with persons with inclusive faiths are very
    viable.

         <<< Note 1127.44 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>
    
>    THis is relevent to the question.  It is not the particular Faith that
>    determines whether people of different Faiths can be compatible, but
>    the way of believing.
    
    	All throughout reading this quote I kept wondering what it had
    	to do with the topic.  I'm glad you clarified this, and I can
    	see your point.  Yes, an ability to accommodate the other's 
    	faith must necessarily be essential to making a mixed-faith
    	marriage work.
    
    	The problem for me comes with what "accommodation" entails.
    	The quote you listed is fine from a certain mindset, but from
    	an opposite mindset (the rigid one that believes in an absolute
    	truth) the quote verges on insult.  Any one of the lines of
    	the quote can be reworked as follows:
    
>Some beliefs are rigid, like the body of death, impotent in a
>     	changing world.
>Other beliefs are pliable, like the young sapling, ever growing with
>     	the upward thrust of life.

    	Some beliefs are rigid, like the mighty redwood, able to withstand
    		the onslaught of milleniums of fires, floods, earthquakes,
    		and storms.
    	Other beliefs are pliable, like the young sapling, easily blown
    		over in a storm, or uprooted by a feral pig.
    
    
    	The walled garden was another good example.  That wall can also
    	mean comfort, security, and safety from intruders.
    
    	The question has to be asked, "Is the intruder ultimately a
    	friend or foe?"  From an absolute-truth mentality, heresy is
    	foe no matter how attractively it is packaged or how gently 
    	it is presented.
							
>    Beliefs that "are expansive and lead the way into wider and deeper
>    sympathies" are enriched by the sincere Faiths of others(even sincere
>    atheism).  Mixed marriages with persons with inclusive faiths are very
>    viable.

    	Bottom line is that this is well and good from one perspective,
    	but from my perspective is not viable if "inclusive" requires
    	me to accommodate what my faith considers anathema.

in other words: no use mixing rock and water!


of course, water is much more enduring than rock :-)


andreas.

   <<< Note 1127.46 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>of course, water is much more enduring than rock :-)

    	Of course, this is a rathole, but water is not more enduring that
    	rock.  Any given instance of water will surely evaporate before
    	a rock is eroded away.  Granted, it will re-form (condense back
    	into tangible water), and while evaporated the water is still 
    	in essence water, but then too will eroded rock re-form into
    	something like sedimentary rock or sandstone, and surely the sand 
    	from the eroded rock is no less rock in essence than the giant mass
    	from which it was eroded.