Question to consider. . .

[Beautiful Fireball]

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.

But sleeping with your sister would be a sin.

 

[Fed]

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.

Really trying to test me now?

Haha, well I'd get screened for recessive genetic traits and I'd probably need a stripper in the room because of the Westermarck effect, but assuming that was the only way, it'd be a reluctant and disgusted yes. If you're gonna keep raising the stakes, let's just cut to the chase - if killing a given number of people completely guarantees a larger number survive, it's worth it (ignoring things like one group being much older).

 

[Luther073082]

But sleeping with your sister would be a sin.

Yeah that is what makes it more complex as I pointed out there.

See before it was just happiness vs. lives

Now we are talking happiness & not sinning vs. lives. . .

it weights it a lot more.

 

[Fed]

I think God will be a little more forgiving of incest than mass genocide.

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

Yeah that is what makes it more complex as I pointed out there.

See before it was just happiness vs. lives

Now we are talking happiness & not sinning vs. lives. . .

it weights it a lot more.

See there, I think you're crossing the line into trusting what you think is best, as opposed to trusting in God. God is not going to tell you to sin.

I think God will be a little more forgiving of incest than mass genocide.

In God's eyes, all sin is the same

 

[Fed]

In God's eyes, all sin is the same

Maybe so, but the consequences of sins aren't the same. And I have a hunch God cares about the consequences enough to favor one course of action over another.

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

Maybe so, but the consequences of sins aren't the same. And I have a hunch God cares about the consequences enough to favor one course of action over another.

God would never put us in a situation where the only option was to sin.

 

[alfrodull]

Is marrying your sibling actually a sin? I know Tamar told her brother Amnon that David would have no problem with them marrying. (Granted, they were technically half-siblings.)

Not that it's biologically recommended, or anything, but...

 

[Fed]

God would never put us in a situation where the only option was to sin.

Well that's why this is a hypothetical. Basically, would you be willing to pick the lesser of two evils even if it was more personally repugnant to you?

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

Is marrying your sibling actually a sin? I know Tamar told her brother Amnon that David would have no problem with them marrying. (Granted, they were technically half-siblings.)

Not that it's biologically recommended, or anything, but...

Marrying a sibling would be incest, and I'm pretty sure thats considered a sin. It is sexually immoral

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

Well that's why this is a hypothetical. Basically, would you be willing to pick the lesser of two evils even if it was more personally repugnant to you?

I wouldn't choose either, because I know that God would never put in me in a place that i HAD to sin. I would trust that He knew what He was doing.

 

[Luther073082]

Actually its just a sin to sleep with her. . . So technically no. . . but you can't have sex.

Its in Levidicus I belive

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

Actually its just a sin to sleep with her. . . So technically no. . . but you can't have sex.

Then I guess no kids then huh?

 

[Fed]

I wouldn't choose either, because I know that God would never put in me in a place that i HAD to sin. I would trust that He knew what He was doing.

Well there are only two choices - reproducing or not. There's no third option. I never quite understood why some people are incapable of entertaining hypotheticals. So what if it'll never happen? It's just interesting to see what people will say cause sometimes it tells you a lot about them.

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

Well there are only two choices - reproducing or not. There's no third option. I never quite understood why some people are incapable of entertaining hypotheticals. So what if it'll never happen? It's just interesting to see what people will say cause sometimes it tells you a lot about them.

So are we back to the OP? Because for awhile you were entertaining a new question.

I am not incapable of entertaining anything. I was just honest with my answer, and you guys didn't seem to like the one I gave, so how does that make my incapable of entertaining hypotheticals?

 

[dluvs2trvl]

So are we back to the OP? Because for awhile you were entertaining a new question.

I am not incapable of entertaining anything. I was just honest with my answer, and you guys didn't seem to like the one I gave, so how does that make my incapable of entertaining hypotheticals?

Exactly...and I really think we should explore the differences between the answers given by the women and the answers given by the men...

If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong because I didn't go back and read through the whole thread again, but if I'm correct then the women are the ones who are saying they could only marry for love and the men are saying that they could set that aside if it meant "saving the world"...

I think it is proving the difference between the way men and women think more than anything else...

 

[Fed]

So are we back to the OP? Because for awhile you were entertaining a new question.

I am not incapable of entertaining anything. I was just honest with my answer, and you guys didn't seem to like the one I gave, so how does that make my incapable of entertaining hypotheticals?

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you specifically can't entertain hypotheticals. Just that your answer seemed like a copout, but I can see why you disagree.

But yeah we can get back to the original question.

 

[alfrodull]

Exactly...and I really think we should explore the differences between the answers given by the women and the answers given by the men...

If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong because I didn't go back and read through the whole thread again, but if I'm correct then the women are the ones who are saying they could only marry for love and the men are saying that they could set that aside if it meant "saving the world"...

I think it is proving the difference between the way men and women think more than anything else...

I'm a woman, and I would most definitely marry to "save the world." I wasn't really paying attention to see if I was the only one, though.

 

[dluvs2trvl]

I'm a woman, and I would most definitely marry to "save the world." I wasn't really paying attention to see if I was the only one, though.

You are absolutely right...sorry about that! Now that you mention it I do remember you saying that! I stand corrected...

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you specifically can't entertain hypotheticals. Just that your answer seemed like a copout, but I can see why you disagree.

But yeah we can get back to the original question.

I gave a legitimate answer. Why is mine a copout and your's holds more value?