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.uhuh, so we're not talking about legal marriage here and that's not a graph about legal marriage. — Benkei
Yes, exactly.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
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.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
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 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 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
It depends on what is between the two of them. So I cannot give a general verdict for all of them.In your opinion, what's the status of atheists who are married? — Erik
You asked for evidence, I cannot provide evidence of internal, subjective matters, since I do not know them. — Agustino
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...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... — Agustino
Okay, you are right, I should have put it this way, it is clearer.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
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.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
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.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
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
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
Yes, they cannot be ethical human beings if we understand "atheist" in its spiritual sense.I may be reading too much into this, but are you suggesting that truly "good" and ethical human beings cannot be atheists? — 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.Even if they identify as such? — 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 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
Yes, I would say so.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
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.Can one actually be "married" before the other? Is it sudden or gradual process? Etc. — Erik
Yes, definitely agree. I wanted to mention this example too.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
I have no qualms with that, it sounds very much like Heidegger, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.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
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.No specific beliefs about God as outlined in the Bible are are necessary, etc.? — Erik
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
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
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.First, there's an important difference between promiscuity and adultery. You have a problem with both and are seemingly using them interchangeably here. — 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.I only have an ethical issue with adultery but that's a personal choice. — Benkei
Let's limit ourselves to adultery for now. Islam does not permit adultery.Islam allows polygyny, which is promiscuous in the Christian sense yet you mentioned it as an example. — 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.You compare adultery to theft but this is not a correct analogy. I don't have a contract with a thief. — 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.A better comparison would be contractual breach which allows for a claim for damages under most circumstances. — 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.whose fault is it? — 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.Finally, the consequences of break ups are well within expectations for any adult getting into a relationship. — 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. — Agustino
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
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
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
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
On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.