where is your evidence he did either of those two things? — Baden

The text messages? Corroborating his testimony with that of Lisa Page?

To illustrate - God is the source of goodness, in fact God is Love itself. How can you love your beloved, if you don't also love God, and hence believe in Him? It makes no sense if we look at the meaning of those words...

I may be reading too much into this, but are you suggesting that truly "good" and ethical human beings cannot be atheists? — Erik

Yes, they cannot be ethical human beings if we understand "atheist" in its spiritual sense.

Even if they identify as such? — Erik

They may identify as atheists, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily are so in their hearts. For me, religion is fundamentally a matter of the heart.

I can imagine two great human beings who cannot find it in their hearts to believe in God and yet are 100% committed to each other "for better or worse." — Erik

It depends what you mean by "believe in God in their hearts". The way I see it, if you don't believe in God in your heart, then you cannot love other human beings fully either.

I'm not trying to be tedious here, but within a spiritual relationship is there a moment when the marriage is recognized by both partners? — Erik

Yes, I would say so.

Can one actually be "married" before the other? Is it sudden or gradual process? Etc. — Erik

No. The moment of marriage is when they decide to commit to each other fully. So I would say sudden, but it builds up to there.

for which crime? — Benkei

Lying to congress, and abuse of public function.

Then let me ask a different question: Why you would go through with a formal marriage given the distinctions you've made between the authentic and inauthentic, the bodily and the spiritual, the outer and the inner, etc.? It would seem completely unnecessary to do so unless you're interested in, say, the practical (legal) advantages of being married. — Erik

Legal marriage is a way to share the "fruits" of your spiritual marriage with society. It is a cause of bringing the community together to celebrate what has happened between the two people and God. So it is only natural, once again, for the inner to reflect itself in the outer.

It's not understandable why you say this, with your level of English, instead of, for instance, promiscuity causes people to get into meaningful relationships at a later age. — Benkei

Okay, you are right, I should have put it this way, it is clearer.

I think promiscuity is a personal choice and choices only exist because of opportunity. I think depriving people from opportunities would be terrible and it's much more worthwhile people chose a meaningful relationship from all opportunities than have the choice enforced due to circumstances. — Benkei

On a fundamental level I agree with you, since morality cannot be enforced. If you do the right thing because you are forced to, then there is no merit in doing it. It must be freely chosen.

At the same time, I see that promiscuity has social costs in drawing others to this kind of behaviour and influencing our culture. The fact that it harms others (instead of merely oneself) suggests to me that we must do something to minimise it, just like we do something to minimise theft (or prevent others from being affected by it) for example (which also harms others). Take the clear case of adultery - adultery clearly harms other people, in quite significant ways, in ways that are more significant, in fact, than if you were to steal their car for example. So why is it that we use FORCE to stop theft, but we don't use force to stop adultery, given that the consequences of the latter are more serious on the individuals involved than the consequences of theft?

But why not just go forward with the public, legal and conventional components of marriage if it's already sealed in a more lasting way? — Erik

What do you mean why not go forward with it? Personally, I do think that, in most cases, legal marriage ought to be one of the "fruits" of the authentic, spiritual relationship between two people and God that I was talking about before. But I admit that there are cases where this may not happen or may be delayed. There could be financial reasons, other social reasons, who knows each individual case...

In your opinion, what's the status of atheists who are married? — Erik

It depends on what is between the two of them. So I cannot give a general verdict for all of them.

Please also note that an "atheist" may actually be a believer in their heart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

Being a believer has nothing to do with saying and repeating a couple of words and attending church. It's again, an internal, subjective matter, that may be cashed out in a multitude of symbols, some overtly religious, others less so.

Tell you what, you're quite a smart guy, but you often miss the subtleties of more "metaphysical" views.

You shall know a tree by its fruits.

You do realise this was an excellent opportunity to clarify your idea but you didn't say "I consider that the same as marriage"? I suppose I shouldn't complain about you staying to make some sense but to complain there's consistency between the start of this thread and what you're staying now is silly especially if you're referring to legal marriage stats that are irrelevant to your apparent position. — Benkei

You asked for evidence, I cannot provide evidence of internal, subjective matters, since I do not know them. But, as I said, under my view, the internal determines the external, which is its reflection. Now tell me Benk, if the external ultimately will reflect the internal, doesn't that mean that there is a relationship or a correlation if you will between external, legal marriage, and the spiritual marriage I'm talking about? Doesn't that mean that you can infer something about the latter by looking at the former? It clearly does, if you want to say it doesn't, then you have to deny the relationship between the two.

To add to what I said previously, this is a big difference between Christianity, and Buddhism, as I was discussing in the other thread. In Christianity marriage is of central importance for the spiritual development of lay people, it is a holy union that is approved of by God, and that reflects, at a distance, the possibility of union between God and his Church, which is realised through the person of Jesus Christ. In Buddhism, on the other hand, marriage is often seen as a social convention, that is actually an impediment on the path to salvation.

That is also why I ascribe such danger and gravity to sexual immorality.

Alright, I think I'm beginning to understand your position a little better. I take it that two people, while not legally married, can still be married in a much deeper and more authentic (spiritual) sense. On the other hand, two people who are legally married may still not be genuinely married in the sense you have in mind.

Is that the gist of it? — Erik

Yes, exactly.

term marriage instead of eschewing it altogether for the sake of "spiritual partners" or something like that? I'll admit my ignorance of the biblical relevance of the term and assume it has something to do with that. — Erik

Well, according to the Bible (and unlike in Buddhism for example), marriage is a divine command first and foremost, it's not (just) a social matter. God ordered man and woman to become one flesh. So in light of this, it seems hypocritical to give precedence to marriage merely as a social matter, when clearly the Christian religion emphasises the spiritual aspect, that is between the two people and God.

uhuh, so we're not talking about legal marriage here and that's not a graph about legal marriage. — Benkei

Yes, obviously I cannot get a graph about the kind of marriage I'm talking about since it is an internal, subjective matter as Kierkegaard would say, not something objective that can be quantified. I use the objective as an approximation though - remember that, in my view, the external reflects the internal, exactly as I said above.

And if I show you proof I've said the same thing before too, will you apologise for lying?

say your "marriage" unravels and you separate from your "wife" - would you tell future girlfriends that you were previously married but are now divorced? — Erik

Hmmm, you're still misunderstanding my view a bit I think.

Yes, I do use marriage in an uncommon way. But that's because I want to be critical of an institution that is many times hypocritical - as if a communal ceremony is ever necessary for there to be a lifelong bond between two individuals. Just like in the days of Jesus, the Pharisees followed just the letter of the law, not its spirit. We have started to do the same today. External marriage, which is the societal one, is merely a reflection of what happens between the two people and God. It is something that officiates what has happened between the two people and God and makes it public to the world.

But this societal marriage is merely a reflection. What matters is what is behind the reflection, the source so to speak. In some cases, there may be nothing, in which case the marriage is fake, and a hypocrisy - a sham. And in some other cases, if there is something, but there is no marriage (no social reflection) that in no way condemns the two people involved.

would you tell future girlfriends that you were previously married but are now divorced? — Erik

No, so as not to cause confusion. The point that matters is that I think that a breakup affects one spiritually as much as a divorce.

Strzok will be arrested, that is my prediction. We'll see.

Maintaining one's virginity until marriage, while extremely commendable, is just not something that seems practical for most people today. — Erik

But that's not my position. My position is no sex outside of marriage. And by marriage I don't mean what happens after a religious or public ceremony which officiates the relationship between two people. By marriage, I mean a committed relationship, in which the two people intend to live together until the end of their days. That can occur way before any actual marriage ceremony.

So pretty much if people have sex in committed relationships, I don't see that as a problem.

Agu's somewhat extreme position — Erik

Why do you take my position to be extreme? At the very least it is the position that is almost unanimously shared by the 5 main world religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Mainly that all sex outside of marriage (or a committed relationship, which in my view one should only start with the purpose of getting married, and anyway, marriage is a spiritual event, and doesn't require a church ceremony) is immoral.

How many American or western women do you know well? — Baden

Depends on what you understand by know well. It could be anywhere from 5-50 if you include acquaintances or friends of other friends. Mostly from my stay in the UK. I've gone to clubs there, for example for a friend's birthday, and I've seen what some of them can be up to (thankfully not on myself, though one did try).

What's their background and what leads you to believe they could be so easily convinced into having sex with a celebrity on first meeting? — Baden

Because from what I've observed, some of them are easily convinced to have sex with a random guy! Now if that random guy was also a celebrity, why would they suddenly back off?

And if you ran the experiment on women? What's your answer. I'm all ears... — Baden

I'm not sure, if I had to guess, I'd say 5-7, but it depends how well it's pitched. If it's in the middle of the street, there will be more no's, if it's in private, there will be more yes's.

What do you reckon American guys like these will do?

I don't see why you've made it just about American women, the point is equally about American men, probably moreso than American women actually. I have no doubt that if you ran the experiment, at least on men, you'd get at minimum 8-9 saying yes.

No doubt that there are people with moral integrity too who would refuse. I'm not questioning that. But you have to understand that your average US citizen isn't the well-read and intellectual Baden who has thought through his moral views extensively.

:lol:

It's just a thought experiment that I think illustrates the perversity of American culture quite well.

Dude you used an example size of one, a businessman who succeeded in starting a company while in debt, as a justifiable reason for others to pursue starting a business, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of new businesses end up failing. — Maw

No, I said you should investigate why only 30% of businesses survive more than 10 years. You have done no such thing, and by your own admission, you are ignorant of it. And yes, my business may close in 7 years say. But in those 7 years I may have earned hundreds of thousands that I took out of it. In your books, that counts as a failure (survived less than 10 years), but not in mine. There are quite a few such situations actually.

C'mon bro, this is a philosophy forum, don't be such a crybaby when people disagree with you.

Holy fucking shit — Maw

Which bit upset you boss?

"Celebrities" are in many cases nothing more than circus acts. 99% of the population can tell the difference between a clown and any given member of the audience, — Bitter Crank

Are you sure that 99% of the population can tell the difference? I would think it's the other way around, only 1% of the population can tell the difference.

The Romans had a phrase. To rule over the plebs, give them bread and circus. It is precisely because the plebs, which are the majority, cannot see beyond the circus, that they get so distracted by it, and thus caught up in it.

If we did an experiment, and Brad Pitt walked up to a randomly picked woman on the street, and asked her for sex, out of 10 women, how many do you reckon would say no in the US of A? Or Angelina Jolie walked up to 10 men and asked them for sex... how many you reckon would say no there?

Sex still works for selling products because actual sexual satisfaction is still a scarce commodity. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but why is sexual satisfaction such a scarce commodity? Isn't it precisely because it's not really possible to achieve sexual satisfaction through promiscuity and the like? Afterall, merely having sex doesn't mean that the sex will be satisfying. Sexual satisfaction is difficult to achieve precisely because of the overabundance of sex, and its mismanagement.

Exactly, so without knowing why only 30% of businesses survive — Maw

So you should investigate it.

Exactly, so without knowing why only 30% of businesses survive, why would that be the default recommendation to young people whose backgrounds, experience, and network you know nothing about? — Maw

Well, when you finish University, you pretty much know nothing about anything when it comes to money-making. Might as well learn how to earn for yourself.

If I were starting a family, and wanted to spend time with them, starting a business would not be in my best interest. It's not a comparable recommendation to a waged salary. — Maw

That depends, you can run your business such as it's basically a one-man operation. It works in the service industry at least. That's what I did for a long time actually. Personally, I was still making a lot better than I would have otherwise. And the interesting thing is that I know that I can always make money, I don't need anything or anyone else. Even if my business fails as I try to grow it, that's not an issue for me anymore, I will always be able to go back to earning as an individual contractor. And what's more, I also know that I can learn pretty much any useful activity and make money out of it, because that's what I've done. I need no university degree, no certification, no nothing. There is, in a funny way, no better security than this.

I'm astounded that you, a self-proclaimed entrepreneur, have paid so little attention to the obvious risks of starting a business. But then again, you rarely give thought to anything, so I guess I'm not that surprised. — Maw

Starting a business is risky, but remaining a salaried employee for a very long time is also risky (I would even say MORE risky). The risk may not feel the same, since, as a salaried employee, the risk is spread over a much longer period of time, whereas the risk of a business is concentrated in a shorter time frame.

The strongest takeaway from this story is don't start a business while in debt. — Maw

Well, Bartmann did pay his $1 million dollar debt back after his company succeeded.

Having multiple consenting sex partners isn't "morally depraved" regardless of your inane, toxic, puritanical views — Maw

I would disagree, it damages your capacity to bond with your partner and the degree of intimacy you can achieve. Now there are gradations. Having multiple long-term partners due to failed relationships and some such is bad, but not as bad as promiscuity for example.

US data from 1994-2015 shows that the typical survival rate for a new business drops precipitously within the first five years to 55% likelihood of survival. By year 10 it's around 30%, and these survival rates don't say anything about profit rates, so the owner could just be making ends meet. — Maw

A statistical analysis tells us precious little about why the 10-year survival rate for businesses is around 30%. It also doesn't tell us what makes for a successful business. There are serial entrepreneurs out there, people who start business after business, and they build several successful companies. So it's a skill, just like anything else, a skill that can be learned. The first time you ride a bicycle you will fall and get hurt, but soon you will learn. It's the same thing here.

Starting a business while in debt, without a supporting network is highly risky, and lacks stability. — Maw

It is risky, but so is the alternative. I remember the story of Bill Bartmann when he was $1 million in personal debt after a bankruptcy. And he was saying that you can't pay back $1 million working a job, that is ridiculous, so the only alternative for him was to start a business.

what currency you are using — Maw

USD equivalent.

Guests give money as well (typically $75 - $125 depending on how close you are with the couple) — Maw

Little money compared to US wages.

costs between $25K - $40K — Maw

Very expensive. A lot more expensive than here. Here a good wedding is around $4-5K. Luxurious one can be in the $25K-40K, but then so would the gifts (presumably, if you will organise such a wedding, the guests will also have $$) ;)

Teenagers have sex. No one is going to stop that. — Maw

I don't think this is right. As I said, here during communism sex for teenagers was quite rare. Sure, some sex will be happening, but more important than that is the culture that surrounds it.

I can't speak to what occurs in Eastern Europe but we aren't experiencing moral depravity simple in America at least because of sex. — Maw

I don't buy that. It is sufficient to give a cursory glance to Hollywood and pop culture to see that sexual promiscuity is marketed and advertised like crazy. To say that you are not experiencing moral depravity in America because of sex seems hardly conceivable. All the daily sex scandals with celebrities, etc.

With regards to the communist countries and this:
http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/columnists/04-08-2009/108593-marxism-0/

Many are saddled with student debt, most companies don't offer reasonable raises (it's generally accepted that the best way to regularly increase your salary is to change jobs every two years, which isn't always easy to do). There are a number of reasons. — Maw

I see. The alternative is to start some business of your own, you can, in time, make a lot better money that way, than staying on a wage. I really do think more young people should turn to entrepreneurship. It has worked well for me.

With regards to this:

I have two close friends getting married soon, and they've had to scrap and save a lot in order to afford it, despite one of them being in a committed relationship with the girl for eight years. — Maw

I'm from Eastern Europe, and here weddings are expensive, however, most people recover the money and actually earn much more from the wedding than they spend. That's why many times you'll find that people buy a car, or buy an apartment after a wedding. The reason for this is that here everyone who attends is expected to give money. So, say that a couple attends your wedding, they will give at least $50 (and quite a few will give more). Now if you have ~400 guests, roughly in groups of 2, that is at minimum 200*50 = $10,000. Now you may spend $4,000 here, but you'll certainly pocket the difference. Now, to give you an idea, average take-home wage is around $600-800 here. Taking $800 as the upper limit, that means that from a wedding you can potentially make in revenue more than you'd make in an entire year of work.

Is this different in the US?

How, exactly, does this affect you? — Maw

Well, if promiscuity is seen as acceptable socially, then regardless of how well I try to educate my kids at home, they will attend school, and see all the "cool" kids engaging or talking about such behaviour, and the peer pressure will make them think it is alright. That's just one example. Then I will also have to deal with friends whose marriages fall apart because of it, and so on so forth. It's going to create trouble in all sorts of ways. Do you think I'm wrong about that? I mean, the way people act and behave, and the cultural expectations around certainly influence what is happening.

I come from an ex-communist country. So during communism, things were REALLY social conservative. You wouldn't see people kiss on the street or in the park for example. Cheating on your partner was almost unheard of, since the consequences, from the families involved and also at the workplace were severe (it did happen, but it was mostly with the powerful, well-connected, etc.). Dating someone who was seen as socially inferior to you was unacceptable (you could lose your job). Parents played a big role in who you could date and who you couldn't. Talking about sex was extremely rare, it was a taboo subject. Showing off based on sexual conquests and the like was fringe behaviour. Etc.

Now I'm totally opposed to such a controlling form of social conservatism. But I'm saying that I know first-hand that tough laws and a strong culture can certainly prevent lots of bad behaviour. The danger here though is hypocrisy.

After the fall of communism, and with the advent of democracy, sexual immorality has GREATLY increased. Lots more divorces, a lot more cheating, more promiscuity, etc. So with the influx of Americanism, and American culture, we have also seen a dissolution of moral values. And Eastern Europeans quite often try to mimick American culture - probably the influx coming from Hollywood movies.

The problem is social conservatism cannot be squared with individualism, even in a modest sense of the term, and empirically it can't be squared with an unfair or tenuous economy. — Maw

I'm very curious why you think that social conservatism cannot be squared with an unfair or tenous economy?

Very quickly - I sympathise with this:

And that's why nowadays it takes 2 people working to sustain a family, whereas in the recent past 1 was enough (100 years ago). — Agustino

Ah right, so people's salaries were halved and they have to work twice as hard now but they're still lazy fucks. Which one is it? Make a choice. — Benkei

I didn't say they were lazy nor that they have to work twice as hard individually.

Salaries didn't half. They did stagnate — Benkei

Ever heard of inflation? It's a simple question of supply v demand.

And? Nobody is forcing you to have sex. How exactly is this your problem? — Benkei

I live in society, it's affecting me, as it happens all around me. My children will live in society too, it will affect them, and so on so forth. You're behaving as if I lived on a mountain, and not sorrounded by the activities that other people engage in.

I will address the other parts of your post at some other time, since they require longer answers. Need to get back to work now.

but the strongest factor is that Millennials are, due to economic uncertainty and financial difficulties, establishing their careers first. — Maw

I agree with your observation. But what do you reckon is the cause? Less opportunities? Too much bureaucracy? Lower salaries?

including dating apps which effectively transforms dating into a Pokemon like game — Maw

Yes, I agree with this. Personally, I think such apps, and much of social media too should be heavily restricted. Not just with regards to dating and relationships, but with regards to quality of life and everything else, I think all the social media is having a very negative effect on society. That's why I've stopped using Facebook.

Agustino seems to want to preach something ghastly without saying it explicitly. — frank

I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest. I know what the problem is though.

Thanks Baden :up:

I think one of our key areas of disagreement would be my, I guess you could call it bottom-op approach, which wold seek to change opinions rather than laws. — Erik

1. What is the relationship between public opinions and laws?

2. What influence does peer pressure (including the Media, etc.) have in determining worldview and outlook for your average individual?

I'm skeptical of government dictating things like sexual behavior - I think that's a horrible idea in fact - — Erik

Me too - at least to a certain extent. At the very least you don't want the government dictating who you marry, when you can have children, if you can have children, when you can have sex etc.

I don't think individual freedom necessarily leads to hedonism or precludes a sense of communal responsibility. — Erik

I agree that it doesn't necessarily lead to hedonism, but, given the condition of your average human being, I think the tendency is certainly towards hedonism. It requires external restrictions (ie, peer pressure) in order to curb it.

In my ideal world, mom and dad (or mom and mom, or dad and dad, I honestly don't care as long as it's a loving and committed relationship) would both work less and spend more time with their children, or doing other things that evince some freedom from strictly economic considerations. A society where values shift so radically that (e.g.) employers would choose to make a bit less for the sake of paying their employees a living wage. — Erik

I agree with your vision, however, I think it is almost impossible to achieve on a large scale. People are problematic. The whip has always been needed throughout history to govern most men. It is true that there are some enlightened people out there, who will freely choose the good. But they are not the majority. What makes you think that the MAJORITY of men can be so educated that they will freely choose the good, instead of engage in self-destructive behaviour, much like the type of behaviour described by Dostoyevsky in the Underground Man?

yet say that they don't want to get married because of "independence". That suggests to me that something else is at play. — Maw

I agree. I think most of those guys are selfish, they are scared to commit to their girlfriend through marriage, and they also want to keep other possibilities open. I disagree with all those actions, and I have spoken to some friends and acquaintances too against it.

First off, I didn't need evidence of later ages of marriages but evidence that it's because people "are opposed to "getting tied to someone"". — Benkei

I live in the world man! Go speak to some young people, and see what they say. Around me, most guys I know aren't interested to get married. Even those who have girlfriends, even in cases where the girlfriends have asked them to, they refused. And some are well into their 30s. Their reason is simple: independence. In virtually 100% of cases that I know. There are some guys I know who got married early, but they are a minority.

First off, I never said staying at home doesn't entail labour but since it isn't recognised as such and unpaid, it doesn't allow for independence for women. — Benkei

That's not what I was referring to. I wasn't referring to women who laboured at home. I was referring to women labouring away from home.

The causal link between the increased paid labour participation for women and this resulting that two people are necessary to sustain a family is lost on me. Care to explain? — Benkei

Simple. Double the labour force, half the salaries.

Second, as a social conservatist you refer to a time when women worked along side of men. So which past are you gunning for now? Are women supposed to stay at home or not? — Benkei

Personally, I don't think women should stay at home, women should work, since work is an important aspect of life. But working does not imply lack of family values or getting married late. As I have explained, prior to the Industrial Revolution, women also worked in trades - away from home - or even farming (which didn't always occur on their own farm, many people didn't have this privilege).

allowing them a third choice next to marriage or celibacy and living with their parents. — Benkei

Sure, and many have, unfortunately, taken it. Why have they taken it? Because of increased individualism, consumerism, and selfishness. So the causality goes the other way around.

Such as: don't get fucking pregnant at 16 and get forced in a marriage you don't want! — Benkei

They teach that in schools?

This is empty of content. What negative consequences? — Benkei

The point is that as technology has developed, our moral capacity hasn't developed proportionally. So we're still the same brutes we were in the past, we now have better technology, and are thus capable of greater evil. That was a general point.

Now with regards to birth control, some people use birth control to avoid having children in order to foster intimacy with their partner in marriage or in a committed relationship. BUT most uses of birth control aren't for this - they are to promote fornication and sexual promiscuity.

Longer lifespans means you don't have to hurry to get married and get kids. — Benkei

It is more difficult to have kids with age. In addition, the body's maximum reproductive capacity occurs much earlier, which means that the best time to have children is missed. So I disagree that longer lifespan means you don't have to hurry.

Smaller families also means less kids, which also means you can start later. — Benkei

I see smaller families as the effect of less kids, not the other way around.

Finally, many people choose to live together instead of getting married and it's not a given those relationships are any less stable than marriages. — Benkei

Sure, I don't have any stats, but I have some doubts :)