Depends where you are

In the UK a republican is someone who wants to abolish the monarchy so, yeah I would

The more internationally fraught question is "Would you date a liberal?"

At this point I wouldn't even date a slightly different sort of Democrat than I am.

One time at a party we were standing around chatting and bad dates and such, and someone goes, "Yeah, don't date republicans."

One guy, a young white guy, goes, "Hey! What??"

Everyone turned to look at him and we were all like, "Go on, do you have something to say?"

So far as I know he's not a maga-hat now, but has a big "rugged individualist" streak.

"I can change her"

Which can actually work. My wife was conservative when I met her because her parents were and she never thought about it much.

But if I were a woman I wouldn't date a conservative man. That's too risky.

Me when asked whether I'd date a religious person.

Me when asked whether I’d date a religious person.

To me, at least with Judeo-Christian religions that believe in hell as the destination for people who do not believe in their god, I find it so baffling that people can have mixed or non religious serious relationships, with the idea "well we just don't try to convert eachother".

How the hell do you square.

I love my spouse.

I love my God.

One day my god is going to send my spouse to be tortured for all of eternity. I will then spend the rest of my life happily hanging out with my god.

It only makes sense if you either don't really believe what you believe, or you are very certain your partner is going to change their view. From the atheist side it doesn't really matter.

Libertarian?

I'm so incredibly disgusted by how evil people have become. If I didnt have a family, I'd never speak to other human beings again.

One day my god is going to send my spouse to be tortured for all of eternity. I will then spend the rest of my life happily hanging out with my god.

Doubt.

They probably don't subscribe to the entire package. Very few people do. They always cherry pick what is convenient.

Would I date someone who wants to take away my rights and sees all women as property? Who is totally okay with pedophiles and rapists, and a load of other evil things?

Gee, what a difficult question. Let me think...

Everyone can be a rugged individualist if they all buy a new H2 Hummer and bedazzled jeans and skull print t-shirt.

Made me think of the zero punctuation review of spore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34no2HhOVGQ

I wish you were more correct than you intend, but you are grossly off the mark of reality.

Most people that hold onto religion into adulthood do so because it makes them feel special above their fellow humans. It doesn't matter if all of it is correct so much as the things that make "believers" special are unique.

TL;DR: Most religious people want to be special, not moral or correct. Which makes them evil piles of shit.

Preach. Fuck this self-cenceited species. The only reason we have control of the planet at present is because there is 8-fucking-billion of us entities that are 100kg+, Nothing more.

I would not date anyone who makes US politics their entire personality, its childish and obnoxious behavior.

Judeo-Christian religions that believe in hell as the destination for people who do not believe in their god

If you studied the theology of judeo-Christian religions, you'd learn that this view is very much a minority one. In Christianity for example, outside evangelicalism, nobody teaches that (Catholicism teaches for example that a “hidden Jesus” saves outside the church). In Judaism, as far as I know, no sect teaches that at all. In Islam, outside a few sects, nobody teaches that either (in shia islam for example, most non-Muslims are Jahil-e-Qasir, “inculpable ignorant”).

I would date a Republican unless they ever voted for Trump or a MAGA candidate.

There's not many of them, but they're out there.

Came to say the same. Wouldn't marry an American Republican or an American Democrat. Both are nutjobs and evil and bought by AIPAC

First I would like to clarify my words a bit, when I said "judeo christian religions that believe X"

I intended to mean "in the case of religions that believe X" (as in, I wanted to apply my I don't comprehend how a mixed religion relationship works for people who believe salvation is tied to belief), not to imply all judeo christian religions believe belief = salvation.

However.

At least from what I can see, just looking up different catholic sources. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-there-really-no-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church , more or less from what I can gather, that's primarally applying for say people who.. literally have never heard or rejected the gospel. IE, not someone who's married to a catholic wife and had a bible in the house and has the choice to refuse church every week.

Sort of the old joke

Eskimo "If I did not know about god and sin would I go to hell"

Missionary: "of course not, if you didn't know you couldn't be blamed"

Eskimo: "Why did you tell me then?"

IE the concept of "invincible ignorance". and from what I'm searching the "inculpable ignorant" in islam. basically applies to people who have never been exposed to the religion. IE if they were around people of the faith... had access to a church/mosque etc.. that doesn't seem to apply.

Pope francis had his line in 2018 that he implied atheists could go to heaven, but the vatican was quick to say taht should not "be considered as a faithful transcription of the Holy father's words". In other words, the vatican isn't fully standing behind that, and that's very far from anything that the previous popes would have said.

Why though?

Could have written an original joke maybe

That's only a minority of religions. Don't paint every religiin with an evangelical Protestant brush.

I think it's possible for someone to still be a good person and vote for the Republican candidate, depending greatly on the candidate. If you vote for Trump in 2016 or later, for example, you're voting for a rapist bigot who wants to be a dictator, so we will never be reconciled.

Same goes for voting Bush in 2004; you're voting to keep the Patriot Act. Cannot reconcile.

But presidential elections are not the only ones. Local members can be quite different from their party. It's not common any more, there's been purges.

It greatly depends on whether they agree on shared facts, and willing to change their minds based on that.

If not, there's no hope.

the number of republicans who made it to a general election anywhere in the country in the last eight years that doesn't support at least one main point of dipshit's agenda can probably be counted on one hand...made into a fist.

i also find christians funny, especially the rightie/fundementalist types, they are purist when it comes to christianity, when its been portrayed in media.

god hangs out with his angels/demons, not lowly humans. evangelicals get mad, if its not the well known traditional angels, and not the more obscure angels in the older texts. they even have a "Great chain of being" ANGELS/demons are above men, who are above women and animals.

Trump is a symptom, not a cause. You might say, a secondary illness thst causes other things like organ failure.

Republicans have been working towards this since Nixon.

That includes people like McCain and Susan Collins.

I don’t care how “progressive” a Christian is. They worship a god that thinks it’s okay to sell your own daughter into sex slavery and murder infants of the offense of their ancestors supposedly rebuffing Israelites during the exodus (and rightly so! Look what they did to Cannan.) even though the exodus never happened.

First I would like to clarify my words a bit,

I apologize for that! Now that I read you again, yes your wording was pretty clear, I misunderstood. As you can see by my poor expression, English is not my mother tongue, and I often misunderstand some nuances like that. Sorry again!

the concept of “invincible ignorance”. and from what I’m searching the “inculpable ignorant” in Islam. basically applies to people who have never been exposed to the religion

No it's still apply. I'm not Catholic myself, but I'll use again Catholic texts, as they are a very hierarchical denomination it's easier as they have authoritative texts. In Gaudium et Spes, a document from the last council (so one of the most authoritative texts of this church), it is written:

taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion (§19)

One can then be atheist not because they never heard of Christianity, but because the Christians themselves taught by their words or their acts something wrong about the Church. And I mean, I'm a Christian, and I can't reproach people to hate the Church (and by Church here I mean the Christian one, not specifically the Catholic one) when I see how far from the Gospel it often is! I didn't heard what Francis said about atheism, so I have no opinion on the matter.

For Islam, as it's a more horizontal faith, it will be harder to find clear proofs, but from discussions I had with Muslims I know, it's more or less the same thing. They said to me that Islam is badly spoken about in our Western society, so even if they know what Islam is and have mosques around them, they still are seen as ignorant.

Eskimo: “Why did you tell me then?”

That's a fun story, I never heard it, thanks!

If I were this missionary, I’d answer something like this: outside evangelicalism again, the Christian faith is only secondarily about salvation. If you read the Gospels, for example, Jesus almost never speaks about the afterlife. And when he does, he generally isn’t actually teaching about the afterlife; rather, he uses it as a metaphor to teach us how to live a full life here and now. The same is true of the Old Testament.

Paul emphasizes the subject more, but his point is something like: "This question is settled: you are saved by grace, so stop worrying about it and do good instead!" The problem is that his definition of “doing good” comes from a man living 2000 years ago, and some people (within evangelicalism, but unfortunately not only there this time) nowadays focus on the details of his definition of a good life rather than on the spirit of his teaching.

Why would a decent person become a GOP member in the first place?

Sorry to break it to you, but if you're an actual self-declared blue sympathizer, you're still part of the problem.

A god like that has no right to exist.

I don't care how “anti-authoritarian” a socialist is. They believe that a highly centralized one-party state and rapid, state-directed industrialization and collectivization, accompanied by extensive political repression, censorship, and the suppression of dissent will lead to communism.

It doesn't make sense, does it? Some traditions give birth to opposing schools, and it's unjust to conflate the two just because they share a name. What your describing is fundamentalism, not Christianity, and “progressive fundamentalism” doesn't have any sense, just like “anti-authoritarian stalinism”.

I think a lot of religious people are happy to bend the rules of their religion to match their desired lifestyle. God will forgive them and Jesus is coming for them on white horse with a choir of angels. As long as you meet your performative obligations and ask for forgiveness later, you can do whatever you want.

Note this is not true of all religious people and while it is representative of my interactions with many American Christians of various denominations, my interactions with Christians in South and Central America and Europe have been quite different.

I grew up in a half-religious home, but it was a very chill "God Loves everyone" kind way. Nevertheless, religion can be dangerous. While my exposure in the home was harmless, just a little casual low-key exposure to a local church put me on a path to being a very devout young Evangelical for a decade or so.

My parents got along well and I barely remember them fighting or arguing. They made it work despite the religious gap. I now consider myself a non-theist/atheist/agnostic/non-religious/Buddhist-adjacent/Satan-loving/philosopher. I dated a few Catholic women (some more devout than others), a non-religious woman, but mostly people who just went to church with their parents or grandparents a few times a year and otherwise just lived a normal life.

Would I date a religious person now? Probably not if their values were tied to it and it wasn't just a cultural connection. Sounds like hard work and life is difficult enough without intentionally setting everything to hard mode.

I'm not even religious but this just feels like reductionist BS. That and that you're projecting just a wee bit.

Not everyone is a purist. Lots of the more open minded religious types are willing to entertain the possibility that their god cares more about people living a good life rather than selecting the right religion. Those types are fully compatible with a multicultural society. Often they’ll play lip service to fit in with the more extreme religious nuts, but the fact they can coexist happily is proof their views are more nuanced.

I’m fine with anyone who is fine with anyone who is fine with anyone.

Nooooooooooooooooooooo

The fact you reply like that lets me know exactly the kind of person you are online 😘

Orange who?

I think anyone who still identifies as a republican at this point is a fascist piece of shit.

Fuckwit with privilege, or idiot who thinks that the idiocy won't come back to bite them

Or something who believes in astrology, tarot or any other bullshit

I haven't got time for this narrow it down please

All religions are stupid and full of hatred