-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Question to consider. . .
- Thread starter Luther073082
- Start date
I'd answer yes to both questions. I mean, I'm the freaking empress of the planet. I'm lucky enough, even if I don't necessarily love the person I marry. (Heck, a lot of non-royalty end up that way.)
Besides, I'm sure the palace is large enough that we wouldn't have to get in each other's hair too much.
Besides, I'm sure the palace is large enough that we wouldn't have to get in each other's hair too much.
Upvote
0
- Apr 1, 2007
- 19,202
- 841
- 43
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
dluv> What if you love the world? Do you love the world? I'm asking hard questions for a point. . .
I sort of agree by logic, its not good for any one person to run the world. The point was to spark a bit of debate.
I sort of agree by logic, its not good for any one person to run the world. The point was to spark a bit of debate.
Upvote
0
Beautiful Fireball
Tomorrow is another day
Dluvs2trvl, hope you don't mind if I answer this too.
I don't think this has anything at all do with how much you love the world. It may be selfish, but I agree with everyone here that wouldn't marry just for the sake of getting married or just to have kids. I don't understand how that would be a God-honoring relationship, then you really are just getting married for sex.
And the situation is so radical, you really can't answer the questions.
Upvote
0
Beautiful Fireball
Tomorrow is another day
But Keri, you have to admit that this is one of the friendlier debates we've seen here for a long time. I don't see any flaming or attacking...yet.
Upvote
0
dluvs2trvl
What You See Is What You Get!
I do have a very expanded view of the world and of the problems in it...
In fact, I spend quite a bit of my time doing what I can to make a difference in the world and in helping to correct the problems in it.
And, this isn't a hard question for me. Like I said, I agree with Keri - I understand your scenerio and I understand the "consequences" of the choice that I would make. There are alternatives to a biological heir...as someone mentioned in a previous post such as a trusted friend and/or advisor, however you limited the scenerio to marriage/children.
So in that case, I would agree with Keri - I could never marry for any other reason besides love...
This discussion could end up reflecting the difference between the very logical / linear thinking of men and the very emotional / relational side of women...
Upvote
0
These greater good questions remind me of two of the more popular ones:
1. If you could go back in time and stop Hitler as a baby, would you?
2. If you could sacrifice 1000 people for a cure for cancer, wouldn't it be worth it? I think the movie "Desperate Measures" with Gene Hackman went into this one a bit.
The problem here is the ends justifying the means. So my answer is still no. You mentioned the Feudal area. These types of arranged marriages did not help matters. In fact, you could argue that all the affairs and shenanigans going on at court were detrimental to the welfare of the peasantry and were a offshoot of arranged marriages. It builds up resentment eventually.
1. If you could go back in time and stop Hitler as a baby, would you?
2. If you could sacrifice 1000 people for a cure for cancer, wouldn't it be worth it? I think the movie "Desperate Measures" with Gene Hackman went into this one a bit.
The problem here is the ends justifying the means. So my answer is still no. You mentioned the Feudal area. These types of arranged marriages did not help matters. In fact, you could argue that all the affairs and shenanigans going on at court were detrimental to the welfare of the peasantry and were a offshoot of arranged marriages. It builds up resentment eventually.
Upvote
0
- Apr 1, 2007
- 19,202
- 841
- 43
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Again thats a total miscontrusion of the point of the question.
Look at the question, its says MILLIONS WILL DIE if you don't have a child.
Right now if Keri suddenly was unable to have children, I'd still intend on marrying her. That wouldn't change it.
but my point was asking "Do I take the personal happiness that would come with being with whom I love at the cost of millions of lives. And my answer is no I do not."
Back in I belive the 1500's (maybe later) Queen Elizabeth the first of England had a man who she loved very sincerly. The rules stated that if she where to marry him he would rule England in her stead. It was her belief that though she loved him, he could not rule england and no other man could. Therefore she got rid of this man she loved and put on a wedding ring and symbolically married herself to england for the greater benefit of england. She has other relatives to pass the throne too. My quesiton here was to say what if you didn't? What if the whole world hinged on you marrying someone you didn't necessarily like and having children with the.
I'm sorry if the fate of the world hinges on me I can't make a decsion for my own happiness but rather for the betterment of all others.
Upvote
0
But in this hypothetical situation, your marriage would save millions of lives.
It's really not that strange of a scenario, in that I'm sure that there have been some rulers in the past who were put in the same situation (except they were dealing with kingdoms, tribes, etc. instead of the whole world.)
I think most people here would say that they would (or at least, should) sacrifice their LIFE to save a bus full of schoolchildren. As long as neither person commits adultery, you aren't exactly sinning, so I don't see what makes this less extreme sacrifice more "iffy".
Upvote
0
dluvs2trvl
What You See Is What You Get!
The thing I find interesting Luther is that you keep repeating the question like we don't understand! We DO understand it...I think from the fact that everyone here is posting - that we are all capable of reading. You just don't seem to like or understand our answers and point of view.
I think it is great that you feel the way you do and if you are ever presented with the situation of being ruler or king or emperor of the world and you need a biological heir to inherit the reign then you need to do what you need to do...
Now if you would have posted you're more reasonable scenerio such as the one you faced with choosing between a commitment to teach Sunday School and the opportunity to learn from two of the best ballroom dancers around - my answer would've been different. However, you didn't....you presented the situation that you did and I made my choice - as others on here have done...just because you don't agree with our choice doesn't mean we don't understand the question.
Upvote
0
- Apr 1, 2007
- 19,202
- 841
- 43
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I understand the kingdom could be passed on like that in modern times. In medieval times it didn't work like that. When a king died childless almost every time there was war between his family members over who should rule. And many would die in the process. Kings and emperors don't get to choose their heirs. (Dictator's do)
But I agree with you on the logical/emotaional thing.
Ok but people keep bring it up as "marrying for sex" or "marrying to have children" when I see it as "marrying to save lives" thats all.
Upvote
0
Fed
Veteran
Too much emotion clouding judgment around here. If you seriously wouldn't sacrifice personal happiness for the lives of millions, you're incredibly selfish. Face the facts - you're not gonna be scarred for life by having children with someone who's not your SO. Besides, you can even pick someone you like, just not necessarily love. Romantic love in the modern sense was foreign to people prior to the last couple hundred years and humanity got by just fine.
Upvote
0
Beautiful Fireball
Tomorrow is another day
Thank you
Luther, I understand what you're saying. But since something like this would NEVER happen, I don't have to really think about it like it is a possibility. If God ever put me in that situation, which I highly doubt He will, then I would trust that He wouldn't kill millions of people because of one marriage that didn't happen.
Upvote
0
- Apr 1, 2007
- 19,202
- 841
- 43
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
CoG, thats fine but just don't think I'd be doing it for sex or children.
And I'm glad that I don't belive God will ever put either one of us in that situation.
And I'm glad that I don't belive God will ever put either one of us in that situation.
Upvote
0
True enough in the West. Not so true for some tribal cultures. Depends on the culture. At any rate, "got by just fine" is a rather nice way to describe an undesirable reality from the past. Many people from that era were unhappy with their conditions because of these arranged marriages.
I don't consider it selfish at all to refuse to marry someone because it might save millions of lives. If it's all about saving lives, I'll raise the stakes. Would you marry your sister and have kids to save these millions? I wouldn't.
Upvote
0
- Apr 1, 2007
- 19,202
- 841
- 43
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I don't have a sister but I'm afraid I would. I don't think there is much you could find that I would not do in order to be of the greater benifit of humanity.
The only difficutly this brings is a clear sin. So doing something like that has spiritual implications. I wanted to bring up a possiblity of something being done that is undesireable to save lives but not be a sin. Just really hard to do.
Also romantic love was a foriegn concept to most of them. I don't think they where unahappy at all because they didn't know any difference.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
