Well, I'd ask you as I asked Ben. How might you or I actually go about "finding" what is sacred, that which is outside of time and thought?

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing how we can suspend the natures of our being in order to somehow ascertain not only sacredness, but what is sacred in itself - and to do so without thought or under the confines of time. To suggest that we can remains utterly incomprehensible to me.

Does it follow that it cannot be found at all? — John

I'll go out on a limb here and put my foot down on this one - no, you or I cannot ever find what is sacred, if what is sacred remains hidden away in a realm governed not by time, nor thought. If indeed you figure out at some point how to find this without thinking about it, and without there having been any time to have passed, let me know. That sounds like an adventure. Might even be fun...although I'd never be able to remember it, alas.

You can try as much as you'd like, but you won't be able to find it.

Then whatever you find to be sacred is unknowable. You might as well make up some other word to represent "X" and say that it has some sort of impact on you. If what is sacred is outside of "time and thought" as you say, then what is there to be done about it?

What specific sorts of things, or ideas, do you hold to have the quality of sacredness, Ben?

Trump compared to Alexander the Great.................

I'm beginning to find it hilarious how Agustino's posts generally boil down to " ;) " every time.

Have been massively busy, and don't really have the time to sift through these massive paragraphs right now, so Agustino, if you still want me to respond to something, anything, just whisper me and we can carry on more casually there. This thread has already gone down a couple rabbit holes already, haha.

Oldies like Aristotle and Aurelius look classy in their busts, I think. Once photography was invented, philosophers were doomed.

Someone was trying to be funny on a philosophy forum?



Oh no!

I'm indulging myself and watching a soccer game. Will respond after I recover from my incoming heart attack :D

Two married people having sex because they either want to have children — Agustino

Red flag!

They do this freely, not because they are compelled and therefore enslaved by their lust. — Agustino

I doubt it.

Do you not think this is a possibility? — Agustino

No.

What would you think about married people having sex because they enjoy the intimacy and spiritual relationship they have with each other? — Agustino

Wouldn't know what this means. Empty words and hokus pokus to me.

My clarification is this - sex and sexual tension is a two way street.The only reason two people would have sex is to do so out of compassion for the other's struggle with it, which they also must share. It has to be an honest coming together, and for the right reasons.

There are some progressives which are encouraging of even adultery, just not most. — Agustino

Yes, and there are some conservatives out there batty enough to vote for Trump O:)

Because you talked of morality apart from religion. So I was inquiring about it. — Agustino

There are quite a few too many Christians out there that think you can't be moral or even discuss morality unless you're religious.

So. Suppose you are married to a woman, and she becomes crippled and can't have sex anymore. You are overcome by your sexual desires, etc. is it moral in that case to have sex with another woman to release the sexual tension you are troubled by?

Furthermore, if you are a regular husband, and your wife simply doesn't want to have as much sex as you do, is it moral for you to have sex with other women to release the tension you feel? — Agustino

Nope.

Progressive/Liberal = permissive when it comes to sexual morality - permissive (and encouraging) of casual sex, — Agustino

I'd agree...

...adultery, fornication, promiscuity, etc.

Uh, no, I don't think so.

So do you think casual sex is moral - apart from religion? — Agustino

Apart from religion? What do you mean by that, exactly? (I actually typo'd and wrote sexactly >:O ) Sex is sex. It's not special whether one does or does not partake in it regardless of their faith, or lack thereof.

I am of the opinion that sex is only moral when it is necessary as a means of healthily releasing the sexual tension most people instinctively find themselves crippled by. I myself am thankful that I have a very low sex drive and thus am not burdened all that much with this dilemma. If one has sex just because it feels good, then I'll be unimpressed. If a couple, say, must have sex in order for them to keep "loving" them, then to me that quite distinctly tells me that they don't actually love each other. They're only lusting after the other's body.

Okay let me illustrate. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe priests should be married. Catholics don't. Eastern Orthodox Christians accept the use of condoms as non-abortive contraception. Catholics don't. And on and on. But both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics consider promiscuity, fornication, adultery and sex outside of marriage immoral. Now do you Mr. Heister Eggcart disagree with any of this? If you don't - then you should recognise that your characterisation "you're either a social conservative like you or a deluded liberal" is nothing but slander. — Agustino

I think you mistake me for Whiskers. I've never disputed this. Also, how encompassing are you using these terms "conservative" or "liberal"? Because I thought we were talking more politics here, rather than religion. I mean, I realize that everything is all interconnected, but..? I was mentioning morality and such as separated from religion. I think you can do that...

You don't make for much nuance here. You're either a social conservative like you, or a deluded liberal. There's zero fine-line.

And I also don't know what discussion you're after anymore here. Seems to just boil down to projection.

Why should we keep on losing? Because they're telling us, and brainwashing us from childhood that we've already lost, not to bother? I will bother - because even if we have already lost, it's honorable that we fight to the end - upholding the truth and the light. Isn't that what we're called to do as religious believers? That we will live proclaiming the truth, and fighting for the truth? — Agustino

You don't own a monopoly on the truth, Agustino. Just because you're rabid about this or that doesn't mean you can be so authoritarian as to say everyone else is dead wrong. I also find it toilsome that you have the nerve to assume me some liberal peasant that has been brainwashed and manipulated, and that I just don't know it. Sorry, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I've sipped from a spiked glass of kool-aid and now cannot think freely.

It used to be conservatives, for most of history, with people all having respect for values and morality — Agustino

>:O

No religion for example morally permits sexual immorality, promiscuity and all these disgusting vices. — Agustino

Muhammad's laughing beneath his green dome.

We have to bring morality - including sexual morality back. — Agustino

You're never going to get that. You'll be searching for that forever, all the while propping up creeps like Trump in the delusion that he'll help fix the problem. It's quite frankly shocking how on one hand you say that the world is fallen, yet think it to be entirely "fixable", to coin some Trump terminology.

No he should be arrested after he finishes his first term. — Agustino

I, unfortunately, see no difference in the world run however anyone imagines it. The societies of man will always fail. You just have to ride the wave. To think you can change the world and somehow make it better in your own image...naw.

Really, he'll destroy progressive rhetoric? All I see him bringing is an increase in Oval office incompetency, a distinct blind eye toward and passive support for the furthering of vile, hateful, and divisive attitudes toward minorities and others, an increase in the already inseparable ties money has with political movement, a distinct lack of experience for anything a President should have, such as foreign policy, the list could really go on and on.

If your idea of destroying progressivism is replacing it with the rotten throwaways of some social conservatism playing as the devil, then sorry, I'mma say nope to that all day, every day.

Aaaaaand yet you still believe he'll do something for social conservatism.

zzz

This won't happen, in any way. That you think so is a travesty. You and many others are precisely the same kind of people out in the world that will slip their pants down and gladly bend over for those who promise to do the right thing, but in all reality, will never do so. It's sad that you actually think Trump is an honest man and will do anything good, let alone anything that he's actually said.

I also must admit that I'm confused as to why you even care so much about US politics.

So to prevent future Trumps we have to change this system which produced him and caused him to be like this. This system based on self-esteem earned at the compromise of other people's sexual integrity.

Ah, yes, so let us then elect a man that has, is, and will continue to abuse this American society that, I might add, has so kindly propelled him to such a place of power as he now finds himself.

In other..."words", Agustino...

?????????????????

So Trump said what he did because of...progressives? Erm, wat? It's not actually Trump's fault, but who, exactly?

Then why are you defending him and his conduct if he is so wrong? :-}

If someone lets me shoot them in the face, I 'spose there's nothing wrong there, amirite?

You seem hell bent toward holding fast to suspicions and impressions rather than the facts-of-the-matter, which I think is why many here find your approach to the topics discussed as being obtuse and hypocritical, to varying degrees.

Have you ever watched Lumet's '12 Angry Men'? If not, perhaps watch it and see how truth can be elusive, especially when facts are hard to come by.

I got my absentee ballot in the mail the other day. I'm still not sure if I'll vote for Clinton, or for no one at all, although indeed I could always just write in Agustino. Perhaps he'll champion social conservatism and take away my health insurance, or perhaps if there's a turd on his bicycle seat he'll accuse me and get some mad scrilla, upwards of $1 million dollars, for ever would I be guilty, >:)

90% of modern poetry is trash, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone when bad poetry is thought to be Nobel prize winning-worthy.

People differ on how they want to tackle the problem of being wrongly accused. Some don't pay but then risk having the case go to court and being convicted incorrectly (which happens a lot). Or, they do pay, which is merely an attempt at throwing the whole thing under the rug. Many of the more high profile settlements include restrictions on what may be said in future, thus in part ensuring a certain degree of finality to the ordeal. So, for Bill Clinton, it makes a lot of sense to pay around $1 million dollars over, perhaps, dozens of millions in some lengthy court case when he already knows he's innocent, but still has to go through the sifting of zero evidence - just to make sure.

Again, for important and famous people, these sort of allegations are commonplace because our justice system allows for it. Sometimes it's a good thing, usually it's not, though.

Same reason Trump settled all of his cases. It's all about image. Even for a "normal" person such as myself, were someone to accuse me of something I never did, I'd go to great lengths to make sure he/she would stop hollering, because even if I know I'm innocent, along with the court, there will forever be stigma there from the onset of the accusation.

Rape is a tricky crime because, by and large, most cases turn up very little evidence for or against what did or did not happen. Because of this, our justice system has a hard time convicting people. However, and in most cases concerning powerful people, there has arisen legion upon legion of gold digging whores in this country that know that fact, and will gamble on putting someone in the middle where they can't get out, knowing that they're innocent. They just want the money. That's the bottom line.

Yep. Welcome to America, UK immigrant O:)

This is very vague. What do you really mean? — Agustino

But the fact that he has paid 850K to settle a rape accusation makes him 98% guilty in my mind already. For all practical purposes that is all the proof that I require. — Agustino

Like this. You sound like an armchair judge who's never been outside to see the light of day. Perhaps you just don't understand how rape is perceived and understood in the US, I don't know.

Just curious as to where your perspective has come from. I sometimes can't tell if you're playing the devil's advocate or are just wildly self-deceived about certain topics like morality and politics.

Where do you live and and what nationality are you? I'm curious.

So then to be consistent, you must also say the same thing about Hillary. To rail against Trump for being dishonest and not say the same thing about Hillary is to be intellectually dishonest. — Harry Hindu

The thread is about Trump, though...:-|

And if you'd like consistency, shouldn't you come back and address your wildly insulting declaration that every male talks sexual assault like it's a normality?

C'mon, don't cherry pick!

Seeing as modern liberalism hasn't all that much in common with classical liberalism, I suppose you could say that I'm, in this day and age, a conservative liberal...

:-}

Last I checked, everyone had the right to free speech, and Trump exercised his rights. — Harry Hindu

You have that right up until you've slandered someone. It's remarkable that Trump's entire campaign has run on denying facts and truths, in the hope that if Trump denies what is reality, enough stupid people will actually grow to think he's right because they're too lazy and dumb to inform themselves. Alas, this strategy seems to have worked quite well...

If using "locker room talk" is a disqualification for being President, then everyone is disqualified as everyone has engaged in it and laughed at it at some point in their life. — Harry Hindu

There's a great difference between merely talking about sex, and actually discussing how you sexually assault, and in some cases rape, another person. I'm sorry, and perhaps I'm a solitary exception to your rule, but I've never joked about sexually assaulting or raping someone. If you have, and in fact think that everyone else does, then I think this tells me and others quite a bit about your own character, in addition to Trump's. To be honest, it's rather revolting to see how many people use the, "but I do it, too!" card as some perceived defense for reprehensible behavior and attitudes. No, Trump is disgusting, and so are any who defend him.

It comes down to who would you want as a friend — Harry Hindu

You're kidding, surely? If I had to vote based on which candidate I thought could be my friend, I'd never vote. Politicians are built on secrecy and deception, even those of good character, so the idea that I'd ever be able to trust their word as a friend is...perplexing.