Christians: Would you enter into marriage with a spouse whose faith is different than yours?

Question

Would you marry a Muslim, Jew, Pagan, or even an atheist? If not, why not?

Answer 1

*braces for "unequally yoked" drivel*

Edit: Told ya.

Answer 2

Tricky question. Lately I'm not sure I want to enter a marriage with anyone, even a fellow Christian. But assuming that I do...

I don't think religion would matter that much. The longest relationship I was ever in was with an atheist, and we hardly ever argued over religion. We respected each other and got along great, and when we broke up after three loving and committed years, it had nothing to do with religion.

But I still can't say. When I date someone it's for who they are, not what they believe. But in the end, as I've said before, it's really hard loving someone who you feel is wrong about such important things like who we are, where we came from, eternity, the afterlife, etc. You can love and respect someone to no end, but you still think they're wrong. That's where it gets tricky.

Oh I don't know. If I ever do get married I think the odds of me marrying an atheist are probably about equal as those of me marrying a Christian. But as I said, the odds of me wanting to get married at all are pretty slim lately.

Answer 3

Why would a person whose focus is on the Kingdom of God attach themself, bind themself, to a person with different focus, or different means of accomplishing it?

Spiritual unity is more important than any other factor in selecting a spouse. More than race or socio-economic goals. True spiritual unity is the foundation of lifelong partnership in a marriage.

I speak from what I know, I can't speak for other faiths. How many miserable Christians married someone who did not share their beliefs during a time of questioning or leaving their faith, only to return to it later. You can't blame the other person for being upset when you change the rules in the middle of the game.

Interfaith marriages are bad ideas. It's hard enough without trying to stay bonded to a person who doesn't share your core values.

Answer 4

No I wouldn't and I didn't. I've seen marriages of different faiths fail. They had problems from the start, how to get married, where to get married. Then the extended families got involved and each wanted their own way. It was worse when children came along. There was one exception, my brother and his wife. He's a Christian and she is Jewish. They dumped all their wedding plans and went to Vegas. They don't have any children and I think that's why they will always be together.

God Bless.

Answer 5

Religion is an important factor in choosing a spouse, but it is not the only factor. So this is purely hypothetical. But for me, as far as spirituality goes I think quality is more important than brand name.

That is, I'd rather be with someone who had a deep spiritual life, a close relationship with God, and who placed a high priority on his faith, regardless of the name he uses when addressing God. I'd much prefer a faithful non-Christian over a man who is a Christian in name only and couldn't care less about it.

Sure, it would be a lot easier to marry someone of my own faith. There would be important issues to iron out -- but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

As for which religion I'd prefer if not a Christian, I'd say it would depend a lot on how well he could accept my Christian faith and lifestyle.

If I had to guess where I'd find that, I think probably in a Hindu, because they tend to be less judgemental of others for their beliefs. Hindus usually are pretty flexible and respectful about all different kinds of religions.

I think I'd be happy marrying a Jew, but faithful Jews don't seem to date non-Jews. Or maybe just not me :) A "cultural Jew" who recognizes himself as a Jew only by his DNA and not by his faith falls into the atheist or agnostic category (see below). The biggest problem there would be that a lot of Jews have been murdered in the name of Christianity, so I'd be afraid that it would be difficult for him, his family, and his community to accept me. I'd be afraid there'd be a grudge, although no Jew has ever treated me badly -- ever. Come to think of it, I've know a lot of Jews and they've treated me with nothing but kindness. So I guess it's just my own shame for my Inquisition ancestors that makes me hesitate.

I'd really hesitate before marrying a Muslim. I'd really hesitate to have children with a Muslim from a country that doesn't honor the Hague Convention and automatically grants custody to fathers. Too many mothers have had their children disappear to Saudi Arabia or somewhere. And Islam has very little tolerance for any non-Muslim. Nominally, Muslim men are permitted to marry Christian women, but I doubt a Christian woman would be allowed to really practice (or talk about) her Christian faith -- especially to her own kids, who would have to be raised Muslim.

A pagan? What is that? The term comes from the Latin "pagani" which means "farmer."

Oh, and somewhere on this list I should probably point out that there are some types of Christians I probably wouldn't marry -- the kind who think all non-Christian religions worship the devil and only Christians can go to heaven. Forget it. No hellfire & brimstone preachers for me. But thank God, even though you see so much of that on Y!A, most Christians aren't that way.

An atheist probably would be out of the question. My relationship to God is too important to me. If someone spends years searching for the truth and honestly concludes that he doesn't believe in God, I respect that, but I don't think I want to marry it. I don't think I could feel connected to him on that deeper, spiritual level. But I'd prefer that over an agnostic.

An agnostic -- forget it. That's someone who says, "I don't know and I don't really care." Not for me -- no thanks.

Answer 6

From the Good Samaritan parable, and the healing of the Roman Centurion's servant, among other sayings and deeds of Christ, I think it's more important what a person IS than what they CALL them self.

Most Buddhists I know are more "Christian" than some spiteful, hate filled self-proclaiming Christians.

I wouldn't care what they said they were. As long as they loved the Creator and humanity.

Answer 7

Yes. if I loved them and they weren't murderous fanatics, I would marry into any religion provided they accepted mine too.
Though the way things are going it looks as though there won't be a Muslim religion for much longer as these crazed Muslim terrorists will destroy the religion they purport to worship.
(They are just rationalizing their own rage and hate, it's nothing to do with their religion, though some of their leaders are egging them on for their own evil gratification, and some of their fellow Muslims are passively supporting them for their own self-hate)

Answer 8

No I would not. I am studying to become a minister and it would be very counterproductive for me to peruse a relationship with someone who was of a different faith.
For a minister if he has a wife she fulfills a very important role in his life, and I don't feel it would be a good idea. A big part of my life is my faith and I couldn't marry a woman that could not be wholly supportive of my faith.

-B

Answer 9

No I would not, because I have seen what problems these differences cause, and I don't want those for myself, also to get married to a man I would have to subject myself to him since the Bible says that the husband is the head of the house so I would want to make sure that I can accept his headship before I would marry him, but fortunatelyI don't have to worry about that because my husband shares my faith.

Answer 10

No, relationships are hard enough as it is without religious differences.

This is one of those time bombs that you think you can "work out" together. It's fine till the kids come along.

Understand though, there is more to religious compatibility that just belonging to the same club. I'd never marry a christian who was a "church three times a week" type or a fundementalist.

Answer 11

Sorry. Can't bear this.

What fellowship DOESN'T have both righteousness and unrighteousness? Surely the two are not mutually exclusive, because nobody is perfect, so everybody is both righteous and unrighteousness at the same time, in and of themselves.

As I see it, these words are essentially meaningless, because the answer to the rhetorical questions is not nearly as certain as the passage assumes.