Okay, I'm not sure where I stand on the entire debate, but I want to throw this out there. Since we are Christians, our spouse (husband or wife) would also be a Christian, correct? Therefore, would it not be better to save the people who are not Christians to give them another chance at knowing God, rather than saving your spouse who will spend eternity with God if killed?

Would this not be forsaking one's duty to their spouse in order to take into their own hands whether or not someone is going to hell? I see nowhere in scripture that supports the idea that you should preserve the lives of the unsaved in order to "give them another chance". I understand the thinking, and I agree that their lives are as valuable as anyone else's, and the prospect of letting one of them die and go to eternal judgment is ...horrifying. But I don't think you should shirk your loyalties to your family in order to do so.

That, to be honest, comes down to what you believe about God's sovereignty, more than it has to do with this conversation. Do you believe you are responsible for whether a person goes to hell or not? That is the real question. It's also not one that I'm willing to dive into on the forum, primarily because of the divisiveness that often accompanies the debate. So I can't really answer that in this thread. Suffice it to say that the salvation state of the person does not change my view of it, based off of my studies of what the Bible says my duties, as a Christian to the unsaved, and as a Christian to my family.

Would this be why Jesus told us (in Matthew 19:12) not to marry? Paul also says that (1 Corinthians 7:38) not being married is better. He did not say that marriage was bad, but he did say non-marriage was better.
Also, (just something to think about) but why would your spouse wish to live? Surely if she (since I am talking to a boy) was a Christian, she would have no problem in laying down her life, as you would have no problem laying down yours. For, as a Christ Follower, should we not do as he did and lay down our lives as a ransom for many? (Matthew 20:28)

But it seems to me that in that case, you would also have to prevent your wife from doing something that would save other people but result in her death. Yes, you'd want to do it instead if you could, but even if you couldn't. And that, to my mind, would be wrong. And I don't see how you could allow one but not the other.

*headdesk* I just realized an answer to this whole debate. Jesus is the answer to this whole debate! God allowed his son, a part of himself, to die for us, who were non-Christians. God allowed non-Christians to kill his own child. If God did it, who are we to say we have a greater duty to our family than God himself? Surely God had every right to kill the Jews for what they tried to do to His son. Yet He allowed his son to die, so that we might be forgiven.
Shouldn't we do the same?

Paul said that because of the times in which they lived. Nero was using Christians as torches for his parties, so not being married was "better" (which is not translated as better for you, but rather better as in more advantageous) because a single person is more fit to encounter and endure persecutions due to being freer from the cares of life, and more at liberty to wait upon the Lord, and give up himself to his service.



Women are also given a high calling. They are commanded to protect and defend their children, to be a hedge. In addition, women are also wired, by God, to defend their family above all else. If, and only if, you have a woman who is a wife and not a mother, then there is a certain level of argument that can be made on this subject. There are still many other factors that play into it, but I will grant that in that type of situation, if she is not the protection of anyone, she should lay down her life for another. But where children are involved, she has a God given responsibility to protect and defend those children. In fact, she puts their needs above her own.



That one is tricky. We are talking about God planning on redeeming mankind through His son, but we are also talking about God and the son being the same person. You have three in one. God gave Himself up for man. Also, God's responsibility to God is very different than Man's responsibility to those placed under his care and leadership. God is not "responsible" for Jesus, if you know what I mean. After all, Jesus is God.

So that is a very tricky argument, and I don't think it really solves anything. God is very different in His makeup than we are. Thank goodness!

I'm struggling with picturing a scenario like that...so I'm having trouble thinking about what you're saying and/or understanding it.

I guess I don't see how a woman is called to lay down her life for someone else unless it is for her children or a very special case--I agree that there are times people should lay down their lives, but I don't think there are times that we should sacrifice our families for the sake of other people's lives.

Um...I think I agree with Airi's responses, Astro.

Yet, as a Christian mother, wouldn't she also be thinking of others? I understand what you are saying, but when the female would be thinking of herself, wouldn't she then realize how others would feel going through such a situation? As a Christian, wouldn't she also have a duty to keep others from the pain her children would feel if she died? Since she has raised her children in a lifestyle which would (hopefully) push them to follow after Christ, she would know that they would both meet. She wouldn't know this about other families, so wouldn't this cause her to want to lay down her life to keep others from pain? I know I would be mortified if my mom died, but knowing that I would see her again, and knowing that others don't have to go through this pain, would hopefully bring me some comfort. (I can't say for sure, because I am not going through such a situation.)

The question of whether someone was saved or not seems to me to be irrelevant to this question--it's pragmatic and somewhat man-centered, whereas I want to look to Scripture for the answers.

As for the example about Jesus, I agree with Airi that that's hardly a normative example for us to follow. And we must remember that Jesus also chose to lay down His life for us, it was planned from the beginning of time. This wasn't a last-minute decision made by God to let Jesus die even though He wasn't sure if it was what Jesus wanted.

So while those are good thoughts, I don't think they are very conclusive arguments...

*agrees with Grace *



I would still disagree, for the reasons stated before. I have not found a scripture verse which contradicts the commands God lays before a mother in regards to her children.

Here is another way to look at it. If 10 children are drowning, one of which being your own child, who do you save? How do you pick and choose among those children?

I would be called to save my child. That doesn't mean I won't try and save any others I possibly can, but there is no question of who's life is more valuable. It's a question of "Who has God called me to defend and protect?"

I'm confused. How is salvation not relevant to this question? Surely the entire Bible is focused on how we can more closely follow after Jesus and, in doing so, bring others to follow after him as well. Surely salvation is a prominent point in scripture. Or am I just twisting your words out of context?

Okay, just so I can understand what you are saying (not to say I don't already) what verse are you referring to?

Now, that's assuming a lot. First, why would the parents not be watching their children? Two, if the kids are drowning, wouldn't you also have a large chance of drowning as well? Three, most kids (if they are older than six or seven) would be able to swim or manage to stay afloat if you took the responsibility to teach them how to swim.

It's not a situation that generally happens in real life, but it's certainly possible to have a time where you can do something that will both save other people and result in you dying. I'm not sure that a specific example would really be helpful, so I'm not going to try to pull one out right now.

But I don't see how any Christian isn't called to be willing to lay down his life for someone else, although there certainly are situations where that might be the wrong thing to do. But think about it; any time you die, you are harming your family to at least a certain extent, particularly as a parent. So wouldn't then any time you risk your life to save others be putting sacrificing your family for the sake of other people's lives? I'm really not trying to say that sacrificing your family to save others is necessarily the right thing to do, but that it's not necessarily the wrong thing to do. In fact, I'd say it's really rather complicated, and I'm not sure we really can decide the right thing to do.

Hey everyone!

It's exciting to see y'all giving your opinions on this subject. However this seems to be more of a debate rather than focusing on how we can apply this principle in writing.

So, if you'd like to continue this discussion as it is now, than please carry on through PMs. Here we're going to look at the principle of a leader's priorities, whatever you think them to be, and how we can apply this in our writing.

Thanks for being awesome everyone!

So... after saying that, has anyone had a situation in their writing when a leader had to choose between family and their other responsibilities? How did you handle/portray it? Have you seen this done in other writing/movies/things like that?

Right, it is. The point still stands, though. When we write, we have unusual and difficult situations that present themselves, same as we do in our real life. So, who is to say which child has more value? That is essentially the question being put. Everyone is determining who has more value, which I find wrong. All humans are valuable. None are more or less valuable, no matter their state in life.

I don't go off of who is more valuable, because I don't see that as biblical. I operate off of who has God called me to be the protector and defender of. Who has He given me charge over? That is my primary responsibility.

Now, we also have a responsibility to save others, if at all possible, because their life is also valuable. But we have a duty first and foremost.

The question I posed was merely to illustrate the crux of this issue. Who has more value? The answer is they are all equally valuable.

..... now how did I end up saying so much in this thread? I thought I said early on I was listening.

Again, I ask "Where in the Bible does it say that?" I'm not trying to fight against you, I'm trying to figure out where it says that. I know it says in 1 Corinthians that a wife belongs to a husband, and a husband belongs to a wife, but where does it say that you have a duty above all else to your family?

Captain, I don't know about everyone else, but I still am perceiving the entire issue as relevant to writing. We are very unlikely to come upon such a situation in real life, but we are very likely to want to present moral dilemmas such as this in our writing (at least I am!) so I'm trying to figure this out for writing purposes, so I humbly submit that this discussion is still quite relevant.


Yes, I agree with you that that is the Bible's purpose. And just as you say, it's not only about causing others to follow Him, but ourselves following more closely after Him. So it's not just about saving the life of someone who may not be a Christian. In saving the life of the Christian, you may be saving someone that God is going to use far more than you could ever imagine, someone who will bring millions to Christ. And in saving your children, you're saving those whose spiritual growth you are personally responsible for. So it seems to me that it's irrelevant to this decision, as we cannot know what God's plans are for each person.

As Robert E. Lee said: "Duty is ours. The consequences are God's."

So I submit that we must figure out our duty, and let the question of salvation and the future rest in God's hands.

Have I explained myself more plainly this time?

The family is the first earthly institution, and each man's family is the group of people that God has specifically placed under his care and guidance. Yet the Bible also says that God establishes rulers, placing the people of the kingdom under each ruler's care. They are to punish evildoers, reward those who do well, and protect the innocent.

One thing I've been doing to study this issue is noting the actions of the kings of the Bible. One sad fact I've noticed is that none of the good kings seemed to be very good fathers. David, Solomon, and many of the lesser-known kings of Israel all had their families pretty much fall to ruin. Consider especially David's actions with Absalom. He was chided for preserving Absalom at the cost of his kingdom, and though Joab was not the voice of God, the Bible seems to confirm his words, since David later admitted his wisdom. But it's a puzzling story, and a hard one to sort out right and wrong, since the Bible neither expressly condemns nor condones what happens.

It's certainly hard to figure out, but at this point I'm leaning towards that God wants a leader that He has established to put the country first. But I can see arguments on both sides, and am not yet sure.

(Wow, that is the longest post I've written in ages...)

*agrees with Grace*



That is interesting, I can see how the better kings' families suffered a lot.

Yes, I agree with Grace. The conversation has not become circular, to this point, it has remained respectful, and the questions being posed all tie directly back into the question of who comes first. Without understanding and talking about the things we are, we cannot answer the question first posed, and thus cannot portray it in our writing. Thank you, though, Nemo, for keeping an eye out and trying to ensure things stay on course.

As for my responses, they will come later. I have a busy day today, plus I have some more writing I need to do.

Okay, that explains some things. Though, in my opinion, I would think that any Christian would be trying to do the same as me and try to save the non-Christian.

This is well thought out theology, but I'd like you to look at Jesus' words. Since we are Christians (ones seeking to become like Christ) shouldn't Jesus' words be first and foremost in our minds? If we were Davidians or Solomonians, then I can see where David's example would be at the top of our list. Yet, we are Christians, so I ask you, what did Jesus say about government and such?

Thanks everyone for clarifying! However, because this topic is very general and does not directly relate to how you personally handle this topic in your writing, this thread is being moved to General Discussions.

Thanks everyone for being very respectful, and I hope this is a very beneficial thread for everyone who's in it. Please continue discussing as you have.

This has been moved back to Theology. I apologize if I made anyone dizzy--take a cupcake, the sugar helps with that. I instructed Nemo to move this to GD because it was, in fact, against policy (don't argue with me, I'm the ML over this forum, I should know ). However, this thread reminded me that the policy needed to be reevaluated, which I have since done; from henceforth, general theology discussion that doesn't pertain directly to someone's writing is permitted in the Theology room (within reason). Hence, I've moved y'all back and you can ignore me now. Carry on!

(And someone should remind me to post in there sometime, because I deal with this in Peter's Angel...)

Thank you Aubrey, for taking care of this, and thank you Nemo for doing as your job dictated.

Yes, thank you girls!

Perhaps this question will give a perspective to the topic (which I have not made up my mind about): God said that someone who did not provide for his own house was worse than an infidel – so would it be right for a man to let his family live in rags and on the brink of starvation to try to save the lives of people dying in India with the money he earns?

It would not be right, in my opinion, for a father to abandon his family to provide for another's. However, he could take his family to India (going with your presented dilemma) to try and help starving families over there. Or he could lower his family's luxuries (a smaller house, less spending on frivolity, etc) in order to have more money to give. Of course, any family member should already be following Christ, and should be wanting their parents/spouse to take such measures in the first place, so it would not be a problem so far as agreement with the children or wife (again, following with your presented dilemma).

I was thinking of joining in this enlightening conversation, but then I remembered that I'm prone to mis-wording things and saying dumb stuff, thus causing arguments, so I decided to just sit here and listen. *sits down in random pile of blankets in the corner*

I used to be the same way, because I was NaNo-brainwashed, but you can say what is on your heart with mis-wording and all here, and whilst you're saying it from a kind heart, you won't start an argument, JJ. Take it from me, the worst debater in NaNo history. I'd like to hear your thoughts, and I'm sure others would too!

Okay, thanks. Yeah, I guess I have been brainwashed. I'll give myself a bit of time to organize my thoughts and then post here, I guess...

You know what I find funny (I know, I'm not really participating anymore, but I like to do surveys among the people I know, and I chose to do one on this topic)? I asked 10 women, five saved, five unsaved, about their feelings towards their husband putting the life of an unbeliever, who was going to kill their child, first, and every one of them said that they would never forgive him for letting someone kill their child if it was in their power to stop, because what did that say about their love for their child?

They also all said that they did not believe their husband would, but that is everyone's response to having to think about what if their child was going to be killed.

Just an interesting tidbit I picked up. It really has little bearing on the topic, but I thought I would throw it in there for thought. I had similar reactions from the men I talked to, but I'm not going to include their thoughts, for various reasons.

That is definitely interesting, Airi! Thank you for sharing!

Yep. No problem. It has been an interesting discussion in my circles recently.