Question to consider. . .

[Keri]

I agree with dluvs on that. I COMPLETELY understand what you're saying Kirk, I just won't do what you would. You asked our opinions, we've given it.

And Nec5, you're right, "If you seriously wouldn't sacrifice personal happiness for the lives of millions, you're incredibly selfish"... I already said I was selfish, read my 2nd or 3rd post on this thread.

Anyway, isn't the world already overpopulated? We could stand to lose a few million people and the world will still go on.




(KIDDING... a little...)

Yeah, I know, I'm mean today. Get over it. lol

 

[Luther073082]

Ok Keri thats fine. All responses are acceptable, I just thought it was a good hypothetical.

 

[Fed]

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

Here's how I see it.

Someone gave a hypothetical. You don't answer since you think it's logically impossible for God to put us in a situation where we had to pick between two sins. What I meant to ask was, if it were possible, what would you pick? That's why I thought it was kind of a copout.

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

Here's how I see it.

I gave a hypothetical. You don't answer since you think it's logically impossible for God to put us in a situation where we had to pick between two sins. What I meant to ask was, if it were possible, what would you pick? That's why I thought it was kind of a copout.

Alright, now I get it. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[futuredoc]

I actually think this discussion shows more about the modern view of marriage than about men and women. It used to be that people arranged marriages to "save the world" (for political alliance, to secure peace etc) and no one batted an eye. The purpose of marriage was to continue desireable bloodlines. Both the creation of new lives and the nurturing and protecting oftheose lives was the primary goal. Love was only a bonus.

Now we expect marriage to be only about love and personal fulfillment. I personally believe that this is why divorce is so common; people believe their marriage is a failure if they aren't in love all of the time and so they divorce. I think we expect something from marriage that it was never deigned to give.

So to answer the question; I could marry under the first circumstance. I would see reproduction and the creation of a family as my responsibility and as such would define my marriage as successful. I would also quite possibly grow to love my husband, not least because he would be the man helping me to fulfill my purpose in life.

 

[Luther073082]

I actually think this discussion shows more about the modern view of marriage than about men and women. It used to be that people arranged marriages to "save the world" (for political alliance, to secure peace etc) and no one batted an eye. The purpose of marriage was to continue desireable bloodlines. Both the creation of new lives and the nurturing and protecting oftheose lives was the primary goal. Love was only a bonus.

Now we expect marriage to be only about love and personal fulfillment. I personally believe that this is why divorce is so common; people believe their marriage is a failure if they aren't in love all of the time and so they divorce. I think we expect something from marriage that it was never deigned to give.

So to answer the question; I could marry under the first circumstance. I would see reproduction and the creation of a family as my responsibility and as such would define my marriage as successful. I would also quite possibly grow to love my husband, not least because he would be the man helping me to fulfill my purpose in life.

Thats true, marriage has been about those things far longer then its been about love. Its only been about love for a small sliver of history.

Thats what slayed me about the nativity story. In the nativity (movie) Mary says "I don't know how father could marry me to a man I do not love." I mean I wanted to burst out laughing because the real Mary 2000 years ago would have never even had that cross her mind.

For further illistration the Roman general Pompey was mercilessly ridiculed by the Roman's for being in love with his wife Julia. The roman's saw loving a woman as an affront to one's manhood.

Now what would really be interesting is if you had an arranged marriage with two equal partners. . . I wonder if that sort of thing would even be possible.

 

[sampa]

....... MILLIONS WILL DIE if you don't have a child.
...........
Back in I belive the 1500's (maybe later) Queen Elizabeth the first of England had a man who she loved very sincerly. ..........

Luther, hypothetically in answer to the question stated of marrying to save others. Yes, I would. I've thought about this many times concerning arranged marriage, if it was the societal thing, I'd be ok.

In my case as you mentioned Queen Elisabeth, I'd have to set my heart aside, (for 14 years I've had to walk away from non-christian men when I knew my heart was going in the direction of falling in love). But it's definitely something I'd give up to God and see how he sees fit to find a suiter. Or just randomly meet him at some social event as Grace Kelly did.

Grace Kelly seems sort of an example, she put her career aside (her passion for acting). I think it was something like this guy had to have an heir also.

Esther did in a sense (but I think it was more cultural) in maybe doing it to save her people. The movie seemed to hint at there might have been someone who liked her, but the bible doesn't say that.

Ruth sacraficed the societal norm of staying behind and finding another husband to be with Naomi. God honored that and Boaz was brought into her life.

Talking to one of my friends that had parents of an arranged marriage, he said that his mom thought his dad was very ugly when she first met him. But she grew to love him over time.

I actually think this discussion shows more about the modern view of marriage than about men and women. It used to be that people arranged marriages to "save the world" (for political alliance, to secure peace etc) and no one batted an eye. The purpose of marriage was to continue desireable bloodlines. Both the creation of new lives and the nurturing and protecting oftheose lives was the primary goal. Love was only a bonus.

Now we expect marriage to be only about love and personal fulfillment. I personally believe that this is why divorce is so common; people believe their marriage is a failure if they aren't in love all of the time and so they divorce. I think we expect something from marriage that it was never deigned to give.

So to answer the question; I could marry under the first circumstance. I would see reproduction and the creation of a family as my responsibility and as such would define my marriage as successful. I would also quite possibly grow to love my husband, not least because he would be the man helping me to fulfill my purpose in life.

good thoughts futuredoc.

 

[Nec5]

And Nec5, you're right, "If you seriously wouldn't sacrifice personal happiness for the lives of millions, you're incredibly selfish"... I already said I was selfish, read my 2nd or 3rd post on this thread.

Wait. What? I didn't say that. Someone else did. I think I'm the only guy here that's actually siding with women(a rarity for me ).

To whoever (After graduate and doctorate work in English, I still have trouble with who vs. whom) said that people in the past didn't care about romantic happiness because they were accustomed to arranged marriages:

Ever heard of Romeo and Juliet? Arranged marriages were customary during Shakespeare's time, and that play illustrated some of the problems inherent in societal pressures to marry or not to marry your beloved. People were not all happy happy about arranged marriages. Never have been. Some like it, some put up with it, and some despise it.

 

[Fed]

To whoever (After graduate and doctorate work in English, I still have trouble with who vs. whom) said that people in the past didn't care about romantic happiness because they were accustomed to arranged marriages:

Ever heard of Romeo and Juliet? Arranged marriages were customary during Shakespeare's time, and that play illustrated some of the problems inherent in societal pressures to marry or not to marry your beloved. People were not all happy happy about arranged marriages. Never have been. Some like it, some put up with it, and some despise it.

Yeah, society was changing at that time, and some were obviously unhappy. But for the vast majority of human history, most cultures didn't focus on romantic love as a prereq for marriage. It was just the way it was and people accepted it. They'd probably laugh at you if you suggested otherwise.

That was my point - you wouldn't fall into depression if you got married without love. Some here are making it out to be some kind of personal tragedy. You'd get used to it like people have for thousands of years. Yes, it'd be harder for someone with a modern mindset but far from impossible.

 

[Luther073082]

Even if it was a personal tragety, what do you think it is for the fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, husbands, wives, and children of those people that are killed?

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

Even if it was a personal tragety, what do you think it is for the fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, husbands, wives, and children of those people that are killed?

Why are you trying to manipulate the question further so that you can get the answers that you want?

 

[Luther073082]

Why are you trying to manipulate the question further so that you can get the answers that you want?

No simpily debating my point of view in it thats all. If it bothers you thats fine, a hypothetical question isn't worth any kind of fighting. I'm just saying why I would do it.

I understand though why you wouldn't do it. Its not like it would be an easy choice.

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

No simpily debating my point of view in it thats all. If it bothers you thats fine, a hypothetical question isn't worth any kind of fighting. I'm just saying why I would do it.

I understand though why you wouldn't do it. Its not like it would be an easy choice.

I'm not trying to argue or fight. It just seems that you keep changing the question to get people to answer your way, and I was asking why you were doing it. Thats all

 

[Sindyan]

The point of the question was personal happiness vs. the needs of many.

Jesus took a cross for the needs of the many over personal happiness.[/quote]

Warning Long and deep post below

Ok...so yes Utilitarianism. So we are on the same boat

Utilitarianism- every action must be made in interest of the greater good, or the most amount of people. Different types

Quality-the greatest or purest good that can come from an act

Quantities-the greatest amount of good.

What your asking is in reference to Christ's call to be servants of all. To turn the other cheek, to carry the pack an extra mile, etc.

This gets into a very ugly idea...because you have the idea of individual rights versus the well being of society

I have this believe of always seeking the greatest good at times...and I forget myself at times...but i have learned that i need to take care of myself to.

IE to be a "perfect" Christian, who wants to completely fill the person of Christ call to servant hood.

You would have to only buy what you need
No car, you can walk every where
Camp outside/Homeless
No Cell phone (don't need it)
No internet (wasteful expensive)

All and many of these things you wouldn't need anymore. Think about how much money you could save based cutting all of that. You can give so much more, and be able to help so much more. You would helping so much more people than what you would would not. Even more so, you would have to break up with Keri, because she is a distracting, cost too $$$, and in interest of the greater good....the idea of getting the most people saved, it would be better to stay single for the rest of you life. This is all in interest of bringing the greatest amount of God.


But....the idea of selling everything we have, and following Christ....it's a call for everyone. Because long term it would cause many problems. People's salaries are paid...because of the stuff we buy. Our having some wealth allows others to have possible jobs. So, by if every single Christian sold everything they had and gave it to the poor....it would have a global crash of the market. Starvation, and hunger would become even greater.

Yes, I know I'm talking in very abstract ideas, but to answer your question...i have to.

Do I get that extra 2 hours of sleep I really need or do I show up and teach Sunday school because if I don't no one will?
Even interest of the greater good, the bigger good would be better. If your working 12 hour days 6 days a week...you will need extra rest. By your neglecting yourself, over time you would become less efficent, and therefore you would be doing "less good".

Do I buy myself a new car or do I give that money to that poor widow with three kids?
Truly, I don't think anyone should be a new car. Beside how much money you lose, a used car is the way to go. You pay cash $5000 for a used car...and save $200 a month for car bills till you get to $1,000 in saving for repairs....you are still better off in the long run. You will be saving a lot more money, and able to give so much more than if you buy your nice hummer with the shinny and spinning rims!

All I did was raise the stakes a lot. (Lifetime unhappiness vs mass genocide) and I put it in a form that most westerners are not used to seeing.

That's a very good question. Lets...be bold and apply to American society. Our food....we have so much and so much extra. We have a huge overweight population, including myeslf. Yet...we have people all across the world who are have nothing, and lucky to get some food every other day.
But to answer your question about lifetime unhappiness you have to think about...how the unhappiness would affect you. Lets assume you were a "Good and fair" emperor before the who women for baby crises. In your unhappiness...would you become a cruel, mean, and evil.....making other people feel your pain and suffering because of your own unhappiness? Killing millions just for the fun of it.
To keep going you have to answer what is happiness? What is joy? I remember reading a study about how the successfully business...millionaire in America is just as happy as a West African Farmer.


What would I do seriously in the situation?
Without throwing the book of Revelations into this mix and all of that stuff, and talking on abstract thoughts and ideas. I would marry for interest of the greater good. Yes, I may not feel love, but I would find some, please i'm not trying to sound perverted, physical enjoyment of sex at least. So I wouldn't be completely unhappy. Yes, I wouldn't be in love, but I would at least be able to enjoy the sexual part of the marriage, and that may be just enough to keep me from going Medieval on all of my my little peasants rear ends.

good question!

​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

 

[Nec5]

Yeah, society was changing at that time, and some were obviously unhappy. But for the vast majority of human history, most cultures didn't focus on romantic love as a prereq for marriage. It was just the way it was and people accepted it. They'd probably laugh at you if you suggested otherwise.

That didn't make it right, nor should it have been acceptable. Slavery was accepted for as long as mankind has written down history. It still wasn't right.

 

[Fed]

That didn't make it right, nor should it have been acceptable. Slavery was accepted for as long as mankind has written down history. It still wasn't right.

I didn't say it was right. Note what I said right after. My main purpose in bringing that up is that some here thought a loveless marriage to be a personal tragedy worthy enough to consider letting people die. I simply pointed it that it doesn't even have to be a personal tragedy.

 

[futuredoc]

That didn't make it right, nor should it have been acceptable. Slavery was accepted for as long as mankind has written down history. It still wasn't right.

Slavery is a red herring in this case....In the hypothetical you are freely agreeing to a course of action, slaves by definition have no choice. Even the women in Luther's question have the option of saying no. And you are correct that just because something was once acceptable does not make it right, it also, however, does not automatically make it wrong. Yes some arranged marriages turned out badly, but so do marriages that aren't arranged, it doesn't necessarily mean the institution is at fault.

I am curious why you believe it is flat out wrong. I understand that it is not what you would choose, and not what you prefer......but do you consider it flat out immoral, unjust what?

I don't think marrying for reasons other than love is better or worse than marrying for love, it is only different.....and what you would prefer to do is as much a product of your culture as your personality.

 

[Nec5]

I am curious why you believe it is flat out wrong. I understand that it is not what you would choose, and not what you prefer......but do you consider it flat out immoral, unjust what?

I don't think marrying for reasons other than love is better or worse than marrying for love, it is only different.....and what you would prefer to do is as much a product of your culture as your personality.

That is the major difference. According to your last paragraph, marrying someone for reasons other than love (money, power, a whim, paternal decree) is equal in terms of morality to a marriage formed of mutual love. I find that type of marriage to be insincere; consequently, the marriage vows become something of a joke before God.

As to your question for my rationale, I guess I consider it immoral. A feudal system wherein the heredity is key to maintaining order is a joint creation by both the peasant and ruling classes. Therefore, any damage done as a result of holding true to my beliefs concerning marriage are not my fault. As super duper emperor, I would change that system immediately. Since the hypothetical does not allow for this change, I am stuck with doing something immoral(an insincere marriage with semi-false vows before God) to save the lives of people that created this absurd situation. The feuding parties and the populace are the responsible parties because they refused to reform the situation. That's my rationale. I'm a little scared that this paragraph sounds like something from good old Jean Jacques Rousseau. That's a scary thought. Feel free to attack if you think I went too far down that territory. I probably deserve it.

At the end of the day, I have to live with myself. Not to derail things, but this reminds me of why I am against stem cells.

The slavery issue is not a red herring. Whether the slaves had a choice is irrelevant because the whole crux of this question is about trading supposed lesser evils for the greater good. In general, that's a rather dangerous route to take. Arranged marriages go over the line for me. If it were something lesser, like forcing myself into abject poverty and exile, I could probably do it. I'm not in favor of using marriage as anything other than a consensual and loving union of man and woman before God.

As to your point about different cultures, I'm probably pigheaded, but I do not consider every single culture to be just as valid as another culture.

 

[Keri]

Wait. What? I didn't say that. Someone else did. I think I'm the only guy here that's actually siding with women(a rarity for me ).

To whoever (After graduate and doctorate work in English, I still have trouble with who vs. whom) said that people in the past didn't care about romantic happiness because they were accustomed to arranged marriages:

Ever heard of Romeo and Juliet? Arranged marriages were customary during Shakespeare's time, and that play illustrated some of the problems inherent in societal pressures to marry or not to marry your beloved. People were not all happy happy about arranged marriages. Never have been. Some like it, some put up with it, and some despise it.

Whoops, it must have been Fed's post then. I'm sorry I got you two mixed up.

 

[futuredoc]

That is the major difference. According to your last paragraph, marrying someone for reasons other than love (money, power, a whim, paternal decree) is equal in terms of morality to a marriage formed of mutual love. I find that type of marriage to be insincere; consequently, the marriage vows become something of a joke before God.

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.

Therefore, any damage done as a result of holding true to my beliefs concerning marriage are not my fault.

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.

Arranged marriages go over the line for me. If it were something lesser, like forcing myself into abject poverty and exile, I could probably do it.

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.

As to your point about different cultures, I'm probably pigheaded, but I do not consider every single culture to be just as valid as another culture.

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


......And Luther if I have hijacked your thread too far feel free to tell me to go get my own thread!!!