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

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.

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? Something still seems awry with it but I can't pinpoint exactly what it is. I think it may have something to do with continuing to use the term "marriage" instead of eschewing it altogether, maybe for the sake of "spiritual partners" or something along those lines. I'll admit my ignorance of the biblical relevance of the term, though, and assume it has something to do with that.

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.

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.

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 :) — Agustino

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 starting to make some sense but to claim there's consistency between the start of this thread and what you're saying now is silly especially if you're referring to legal marriage stats that are irrelevant to your apparent position.

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.

You shall know a tree by its fruits.

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

In your opinion, what's the status of atheists who are married? The implication of your position would appear to suggest that they're not really married, which, if I'm being perfectly honest, seems a little rude, Agu!

I think that may be the other problem I intuited concerning your position on marriage.

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.

You asked for evidence, I cannot provide evidence of internal, subjective matters, since I do not know them. — Agustino

Then you should say so instead of obfuscating your position especially if I highlight an issue that we would agree on. There's s lot we can philosophise about without having data. Your position was that promiscuity caused people to get married later. 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.

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.

Okay, I won't deny there are parts of this position of yours that I find appealing. I never particularly cared for the ring aspect of marriage, for instance, and see its as an (oftentimes) ostentatious and superfluous addition to the "inner" commitment you're referring to. But why not just go forward with the public, legal, and conventional components of marriage if the relationship is already sealed in a more lasting way?

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...

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... — Agustino

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

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?

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 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. — Agustino

I may be reading too much into this, but are you suggesting that truly "good" and ethical (or whatever superlative you like) people cannot be atheists? Even if they identify as such? 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." I'm just trying to draw out the curious implications of your stance.

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. — Agustino

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? Can one actually be "married" before the other? Is it a sudden or gradual process? Depends on the specifics of each case? Can one be "married" to more than one person? Etc.

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.

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...

What if this supposedly authentic, selfless love is the very source of a rejection of God as typically conceived? In other words, atheists are closer to God than theists. God (as love) rejecting the notion - the human idol - of (e.g.) God as cosmic tyrant who's going to condemn non-believers to everlasting pain and suffering?

I like the direction you're going with this in some ways, but it seems to lead to another counter-intuitive conclusion (similar to your sense of marriage): that there may be plenty of self-professed atheists who are actually theists, and many self-professed theists who are actually atheists. Many an honorable atheist has rejected the idea of God, I think, not only through a perceived lack of evidence, but also in large part by seeing how "theists" have behaved towards others historically: they hate, they persecute, etc.

So where genuine love is found so too will God be found? No need for anything else? No specific beliefs about God as outlined in the Bible are necessary, etc.?

But with that I'm completely out of my element and will vacate the field. Feel free to expand on your notion of God but I haven't much more to add.

Many an honorable atheist has rejected the idea of God, I think, not only through a perceived lack of evidence, but also in large part by seeing how "theists" have behaved towards others historically: they hate, they persecute, etc. — Erik

Yes, definitely agree. I wanted to mention this example too.

What if this supposedly authentic, selfless love is the very source of a rejection of God as typically conceived? In other words, atheists are closer to God than theists. God (as love) rejecting the notion - the human idol - of (e.g.) God as cosmic tyrant who's going to condemn non-believers to everlasting pain and suffering? — Erik

I have no qualms with that, it sounds very much like Heidegger, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.

No specific beliefs about God as outlined in the Bible are are necessary, etc.? — Erik

Beliefs are not necessary, but faith is. I believe the Law passed on by Moses, and previously the Noahide laws, are codifications of this Love as it pertains to ethical behaviour.

I don't have much time now, I will likely get back to this at a later time!

I don't have much time now, I will likely get back to this at a later time! — Agustino

:up:

Sounds good. Thanks for answering my questions.

Just a method to avoid admitting he's wrong. He does it regularly. It's totally inconsistent with the discussions at the start of this thread. — Benkei

I'll have to backtrack and check out his earlier contributions. I think I found a couple potentially serious flaws in his position as I just read through and processed the last couple pages again, but I think I'll back off for the moment. :razz:

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? — Agustino

First, there's an important difference between promiscuity and adultery. You have a problem with both and are seemingly using them interchangeably here. I only have an ethical issue with adultery but that's a personal choice. It's precisely because I'm aware of the cultural basis of my view that I'd refuse to legislate on this. Islam allows polygyny, which is promiscuous in the Christian sense yet you mentioned it as an example. This is simply dependent on time and place.

Second, it's not a given short term relationships aren't meaningful to begin with. This is not mutually exclusive.

You compare adultery to theft but this is not a correct analogy. I don't have a contract with a thief. A better comparison would be contractual breach which allows for a claim for damages under most circumstances.

So when one spouse cheats on the other at the most that's a contractual breach and not a criminal issue.The aggrieved party can chose to forgive or to divorce. It's my understanding that in some States in the USA it is relevant who caused a divorce and that damages can be awarded. I suspect this leads to very messy and harmful divorces for everyone involved because the more dirt you throw at your ex the better off you'll be financially. And this is the main problem right there ; whose fault is it? The wife that cheated? The emotionally absent husband? The external pressures of jobs, rebelling kids, family death, illnesses etc.? Explicit and implicit expectations could be reason to divorce but were they obligations to begin with? The obligations of a marriage are not defined or set in stone and subject to continual negotiation and cooperation as the needs of those involved continually change. It is difficult to navigate the muddy waters of a marriage and love alone isn't enough.

Finally, the consequences of break ups are well within expectations for any adult getting into a relationship. It's not the end of the world or you can choose not to get involved in the first place. Nobody is forcing anyone to be in any relationship.

First, there's an important difference between promiscuity and adultery. You have a problem with both and are seemingly using them interchangeably here. — Benkei

No, I'm not using them interchangeably, I just want to discuss the most serious one out of them, because it's easier to see the wrongness there, where it is magnified. Like Plato discussed a city, instead of a person, in order to investigate morality.

I only have an ethical issue with adultery but that's a personal choice. — Benkei

If you have an ethical issue with adultery, then it's not just a personal choice, it is something that you consider to be valid for all. If I have an ethical issue with murder, then it's not just a personal choice, it's something that I consider valid for all.

Islam allows polygyny, which is promiscuous in the Christian sense yet you mentioned it as an example. — Benkei

Let's limit ourselves to adultery for now. Islam does not permit adultery.

You compare adultery to theft but this is not a correct analogy. I don't have a contract with a thief. — Benkei

Yes, you do, it's a social contract. If you want to live in society and enjoy what society provides you with, then you are effectively in a contract with the rest of society.

A better comparison would be contractual breach which allows for a claim for damages under most circumstances. — Benkei

Yes, and in the case of adultery, the damage is most often irreparable, irreversible and hence necessitates exemplary damages to be awarded. These are not expectation damages that could be recovered, as from the theft of a car for example. You do realise that adultery is (or should be), morally, ethically, and legally MUCH more serious than pretty much any act of theft. That is why adultery was punished by death in the past, just like murder. Theft wasn't punished by death in most cases for example.

whose fault is it? — Benkei

Really?! The one who cheats, obviously. Regardless of what the other partner does, cheating is off-limits. You can divorce them, sure, but not cheat.

Finally, the consequences of break ups are well within expectations for any adult getting into a relationship. — Benkei

No - not if you're referring to breakups that occur due to adultery. That's like telling me the consequences of your business partner driving your business into the ground to earn a profit himself are well within expectations for any adult starting a business with someone else. This is utterly insane. If they were within expectations, you would never have started that business together, or, in the case of marriage, you would never have gotten married with that person in the first place.

Again, the damages of adultery are irreparable. No amount of monetary compensation can ever repair the damage that was done. So it's not like your average business contract where you can quantify some damages and pay them. These are unpayable.

If you have an ethical issue with adultery, then it's not just a personal choice, it is something that you consider to be valid for all. If I have an ethical issue with murder, then it's not just a personal choice, it's something that I consider valid for all. — Agustino

I don't consider my personal morals universal or something to enforce on others. You shouldn't project your view of universality on me. You can disagree of course but that's neither here nor there in my moral system. More importantly though, and you don't address it, is that any set of morals are time and place dependent and therefore fluid.

Yes, you do, it's a social contract. If you want to live in society and enjoy what society provides you with, then you are effectively in a contract with the rest of society. — Agustino

Unsophisticated Rousseaun contract theory. First off, insert all arguments against Rousseau. I'm a fan of Rawls though but his contract theory is time and place dependent, non-universal and reflective.

Second, the social contract, whatever it is, is not legally enforced either - only laws are.

You do realise that adultery is (or should be), morally, ethically, and legally MUCH more serious than pretty much any act of theft. That is why adultery was punished by death in the past, just like murder. Theft wasn't punished by death in most cases for example. — Agustino

This is a silly argument. Hands were cut off for thievery as well. Times change, morals change. You're being really selective with which culture and which time you select. Your bare assertion how terrible the consequences of adultery are, is not borne out by reality. YOU think it's very important and therefore assume considerable damages. The rest of the civilised world shrugs it off. Take France for instance since forever. Or English rakes etc. during a time the death penalty for adultery existed. All this contrary to local religious mores no less.

Really?! The one who cheats, obviously. Regardless of what the other partner does, cheating is off-limits. You can divorce them, sure, but not cheat. — Agustino

Culpability, justice and fairness are not as black and white as you pretend it to be. I'm not going into how law if actually practised for centuries already. Just look up excuses, justifications and exculpations for starters. Suffice is to say that luckily, you're not a judge as the judgments you'd pass would be draconian.

If they were within expectations, you would never have started that business together, or, in the case of marriage, you would never have gotten married with that person in the first place. — Agustino

Why do you think people invented pre-nups? You seem to replace your personal notion of what marriage should be with what's going on in the real world. I'm married and my wife and I regularly state "assuming we're still together then, it would be great...". We understand that there are plenty of reasons people might divorce or even end up committing adultery. With respect to the latter, we have an agreement that the person who commits adultery has to decide whether he/she wants to continue in the marriage or not. If they want to continue they need to hold that secret and carry that weight on their own. We think it's totally unfair to ask the other person for forgiveness and put the burden of the decision of a divorce on the other who didn't do anything wrong in the first place.

And don't get me wrong. Despite these practicalities I am a romantic and I have every intention of being with my wife until I die and so does she. We surprise each other with small hand-made gifts, special dates every month and such. We go to a therapist twice a year, not because we have problems, but because we want to avoid getting into the type of problems that cause people to divorce. And in doing that I suspect we're a lot more serious about our relationship than many people who say and think that marriage is for ever and there's that one special someone out there.

I get you feel very strongly about what marriage should be, what a relationship should look like and I think that's laudable and I wish you good luck with finding someone who shares that outlook or maintaining a relationship with that person if you're already in one. The hard part is putting what you believe into practice and making it work every day.

Just don't start about legislating this sort of stuff. Your view on sexuality is not shared by the majority and requires a lot of people to subscribe to (religious) assumptions that most of us have rejected in one way or another. It really comes across as tyranous.

On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk — Agustino

What a fucking bunch of horseshit...

Republicans and Democrats have both fucked over a large swathe of the American population. There is no difference at all between them when it comes to siding with corporate interests over regular working class people... across the board aside from very few congresspeople...