Question to consider. . .

[Nec5]

But this is exactly the type of marriage that nearly everyone in the Bible participated in and not just in the old testament. Even the earthly parents of God's own son married to give protection not because Mary and Joseph were madly in love with each other.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you. Besides, if God commanded it, you do it. It doesn't matter if it contradicts what you thought you were supposed to be doing. We do our best to follow his direction, but we're lost sheep in the end.

Heck, polygamy is in the Bible too. I don't recall the Bible ever promoting a specific type of marriage. The marriage vows do mention love, so I tend to follow that line of thought. I know it's arbitrary, but it's better than relativism. By the way, I'm horrible at quoting scripture. That's why I'm wary of referencing it directly.

Do you really believe this? I feel like its my responsibility to live my beliefs without using them as a weapon to cause damage to others.

Yes. In this hypothetical, my belief was not used as a weapon. If I had ordered all of my loyal subjects to say ten Our Father's a day or be executed, then you would have a point.

I always find it interesting to see where people draw their lines in the sand. We all do it (I do too) and often at places that are more arbitrary than we like to admit.

Again interesting...how do you decide which cultures are more valid?

I assume that certain principles are absolutes and cultures that don't meet those are in trouble. I'll pick a few that aren't so controversial: cannibalism is evil, murdering for personal gain is evil, peace is a noble goal and aim of all societies(idealistic as that sounds).

For the most part, I don't really judge other societies much unless they do some pretty heinous things: slavery, human sacrifice, etc...
I tend to respect other nation's sovereignty even if I strongly disagree with their moral stances.

How do you make judgments about cultures, marriage and such?

[Rant] When these debates come up on other forums(I'm new here obviously), agnostics and atheists are quick to point out that these principles are entirely arbitrary. When people of faith mention God as an explanation, the discussion goes downhill because faith is not easily explained to pure empiricists that only grasp what can be quantified. I would submit that every society has to make an arbitrary stand on issues to have some form of stability and strength. That's what I argue to agnostics because referencing faith doesn't impress them. Barbarian tribes have existed for thousands years with murder as a viable method of advancement. As you said, you have to draw a line somewhere.[/rant]

 

[Luther073082]

No futuredoc I like to just let the thread go where it may sometimes and this is one of those times. Its not that far off topic anyways.

The reason that I think this question is interesting in most westerners wouldn't consider this kind of sacrifice. I could easly say "Would you die to save a million people" but I think westerner's can understand that sacrifice. I think they have more trouble with understanding this and being able to give up personal happiness for this.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you. Besides, if God commanded it, you do it. It doesn't matter if it contradicts what you thought you were supposed to be doing. We do our best to follow his direction, but we're lost sheep in the end.

Heck, polygamy is in the Bible too. I don't recall the Bible ever promoting a specific type of marriage. The marriage vows do mention love, so I tend to follow that line of thought. I know it's arbitrary, but it's better than relativism. By the way, I'm horrible at quoting scripture. That's why I'm wary of referencing it directly.

Here is two problems. The scripture mentions love but not being in love. Often this type of love is probably affection which under CS Lewis's "The four loves" means that you love someone because you are simply used to having them around.

Also we know from history that Mary was probably about 14 and had an arranged marriage to someone who was probably 30's or older. Their marriage was in no way abnormal, if it was it would probably devalidate the scriptures as they where engaged before Mary was pregnant with Jesus.

How do you make judgments about cultures, marriage and such?

You don't, I'm asking people to take on a lifetime committment to something that isn't used anymore in western cultures.

Logically using only my logic and NO EMOTION then arranged marriages are far more logical of a system then our love marriages which go awry so often. Now if you factor in emotion then no its not something anyone in a western culture would want.

 

[Nec5]

Logically using only my logic and NO EMOTION then arranged marriages are far more logical of a system then our love marriages which go awry so often. Now if you factor in emotion then no its not something anyone in a western culture would want.

If we're going the computerized logic with NO EMOTION route, why marry at all? Besides, intuition, faith, logic, and whim are all a part of the human makeup. It seems silly to discard each of them for some robotic Vulcan approach. The wise man knows when to pull each of these tools from the good old toolbelt.

The answer to your hypothetical must be no. If you "believe" that marriage should be about a consensual and loving commitment to a woman, then to do otherwise is wrong. If the society falls apart because you follow a the right path, then the society is at fault. They created the hereditary system, and they can pay the piper. If that makes me a selfish monster, fine.

C'mon, gentlemen. Where's your sense of pride and courage? Where is the machismo? Take a stand for what you believe is right. Your "empire" didn't do what was right; it's not your problem. Too bad.

My stand is that arranged marriages should be found only in history books or in cultures whose citizens freely accept the practice. I think we've, hopefully, moved beyond such a fascist controlled process over personal activity.

 

[Nec5]

The reason that I think this question is interesting in most westerners wouldn't consider this kind of sacrifice. I could easly say "Would you die to save a million people" but I think westerner's can understand that sacrifice. I think they have more trouble with understanding this and being able to give up personal happiness for this.

Sorry for the double post. That's a bizarre scenario. Define personal happiness.

It isn't marriage. It might be for some, but it's not the same thing. I happen to believe that God wants us to find someone that we love and then spend the remainder of our lives together. For some people, that may not be their path. They may not decide to get married at all. Who knows?

Doing something I consider immoral is not the same as sacrificing personal happiness.

 

[Luther073082]

If we're going the computerized logic with NO EMOTION route, why marry at all? Besides, intuition, faith, logic, and whim are all a part of the human makeup. It seems silly to discard each of them for some robotic Vulcan approach. The wise man knows when to pull each of these tools from the good old toolbelt.

The answer to your hypothetical must be no. If you "believe" that marriage should be about a consensual and loving commitment to a woman, then to do otherwise is wrong. If the society falls apart because you follow a the right path, then the society is at fault. They created the hereditary system, and they can pay the piper. If that makes me a selfish monster, fine.

C'mon, gentlemen. Where's your sense of pride and courage? Where is the machismo? Take a stand for what you believe is right. Your "empire" didn't do what was right; it's not your problem. Too bad.

My stand is that arranged marriages should be found only in history books or in cultures whose citizens freely accept the practice. I think we've, hopefully, moved beyond such a fascist controlled process over personal activity.

I'm not advocating arranged marriages or the subjecation of women being forced into the marriage.

The question was of marrying in an arranged way because you have no other choice to protect people.

I'm not saying get an arranged marriage, I certainly wouldn't want one. The question is about sacrifice for the greater good more then anything but it is put in a way that westerners arn't used to.

Doing something I consider immoral is not the same as sacrificing personal happiness.

God determines morality, arranged marriages are determined to be moral and not in oppsition to God. I'm not saying that we should do it that way because love marriages are also not against morality either and are more fun. . . But since an arranged marriage is not in opposition to scripture then I can not consider it immoral. Just not something I would want to do personally.

However I would put up with it to save people's lives.

 

[Nec5]

God determines morality, arranged marriages are determined to be moral and not in oppsition to God. I'm not saying that we should do it that way because love marriages are also not against morality either and are more fun. . . But since an arranged marriage is not in opposition to scripture then I can not consider it immoral. Just not something I would want to do personally.

Maybe this is where my hangup is coming from. I'm Catholic. For the first time in years, your thread has caused me to pull out the handy dandy Catechism of the Catholic Church. Regarding marriage, it states:

"The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; 'to be free' means:

--not being under constraint;
--not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law

The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage". If consent is lacking, there is no marriage.

The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear. No human power can substitute for this consent. If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

I bolded the text I thought was most relevant. These statements have several references to scripture pointed out at the bottom of the book. It's a failing on my part, but I've already admitted that I'm not very good at getting all these references down. You seem more adept on that front.

I'm also not foolishly suggesting that you have to abide by Catholic doctrine. I merely put this out here to demonstrate why I think your hypothetical calls for an immoral act. We'd both agree entering into a marriage purely to save lives is a "grave external fear". I think that about sums up my position.

 

[Luther073082]

Thats a recent addition to Catholic doctrine I can tell you that for sure. The Catholic church was around for a long time and they where performing arranged marriages a lot during those times.

Although I see why you might consider it immoral . . .

 

[Nec5]

Thats a recent addition to Catholic doctrine I can tell you that for sure. The Catholic church was around for a long time and they where performing arranged marriages a lot during those times.

Don't forget the selling of indulgences.

 

[Luther073082]

Don't forget the selling of indulgences.

And burning my predecessor's at the stake. . . Trust me I'm Lutheran I know all about it.

 

[die2live]

So I know I'm coming in kind of late in the discussion, but this seemed really interesting, so I wanted to chime in.

My answer to number 1 is yes. I would never sin against God, even for the greater good, because I trust God and (I think ChildofGod mentioned something like this) I don't think he would tell us not to do something (through the Bible) and then have us come to our own conclusions that it is okay in a particular situation. God does not contradict himself. If he tells us not to do something, then he means it and he's not going to change his mind for one particular instance. So I would not marry my brother in this situation, nor would I kill a thousand people to find the cure for cancer (I think that was brought up earlier) or anything like that.

However, I do not believe arranged marriages are sinful. Marriage is about love, committment and trust and you can have all three of those things with anybody who is willing to return them. If I were empress of the world, then I'm sure I would have many options and I could find at least one person who was willing to love, commit to, and trust me. I would find somebody who was willing to make God the center of our marriage and I am sure that our marriage would be pleasing to God and an act of worship to him.

As for the second question, that would depend. Am I married to my SO and am now finding out that he cannot have children? In that case, I would not divorce him or acquire a second husband. Both of those cases would be adultery, which is a sin in God's eyes and, regardless of the outcome, it would not be pleasing to him.

But if I was not married to him yet and found out he was unable to have children, then, yes, I would break it off and marry someone else. And I believe that anyone that I was in love with would understand how much it hurt me and understand that I had to make this decision anyway. But, for me, it's the only decision to be made.

After all, we're only on this earth for like seventy or so years (probably less if you're actually ruling the world). I'll have eternity in heaven to spend with my earthly love. I'm sure we could wait till then.

 

[Sketcher]

Q1: I'd pull a Xerxes. I'd hold a beauty contest among young, fertile and eligible women, and the winner gets to be my wife.

Q2: If I really loved her, I suppose I would marry her and adopt a son, raising him to be my successor.

 

[sweetlambofgod]

I would only marry if I loved the person

 

[koban4max]

There's a difference between trusting god and making a move on someone...