[RK_lover]

1. Why is the woman a static object? Can't she make her own choices? And yet you suggested that Nate was being chauvinistic...
2. By the logic of your example, it's fine for someone to rob a bank (taking other people's money) and buy a yacht, because the person would be happy afterwards with their yacht.
3. How do you know that the girl wouldn't have ended up happier with the first guy? Or even that everyone might end up happier if the "Jerry" doesn't interfere?
4. What if when you were engaged to your wife, you were forced to correspond by mail, and another guy (who believed he loved your wife more than you did) took the letters, burned them, and sent her his own?

[Novan_Leon]

Originally Posted by Nate

I think he's s. o. l.

What if you butt in, steal her away, and then he realizes his feelings for her more deeply, pulls himself together, and then comes back and tries to woo her away from you. Now what? Now you've ****ed up three lives, and played prepubescent, preschool playground ping-pong with the heart of the woman you said you loved.

What if you're on the other side? What if you're the engagee? Is it ok for you to entertain thoughts of women other than your fiancee? How long can that go on? Until your wedding night when you consummate the union? Why bother being engaged at all then? Would you be putting this engaged women in a good situation by pursuing her?

This is covetousness.

Let's assume he isn't going just recklessly butt in and interfere. Is it ok for him to simply confess his feelings and leave it at that?

Is it ok for him to harbor these feelings privately until the engagement is consummated, or should he reject these feelings once the target of his affection becomes engaged?

[Novan_Leon]

FYI: The problem with Napoleon's Jerry Falwell argument is that happiness has no moral value. Obedience to Christ is the only thing that holds moral value in this life, regardless of whether you're happy or not.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Novan_Leon

Let's assume he isn't going just recklessly butt in and interfere. Is it ok for him to simply confess his feelings and leave it at that?

Is it ok for him to harbor these feelings privately until the engagement is consummated, or should he reject these feelings once the target of his affection becomes engaged?

I'm not sure why you bother asking, if the questions are only targeted at me. I've been more than clear.

There are no circumstances, I don't think, under which this action would be appropriate.

Yes, move on. If you want to make yourself miserable, though, feel free.

The inner harboring is, as I said, a form of covetousness.

[RK_lover]

Originally Posted by Novan_Leon

Let's assume he isn't going just recklessly butt in and interfere. Is it ok for him to simply confess his feelings and leave it at that?

Is it ok for him to harbor these feelings privately until the engagement is consummated, or should he reject these feelings once the target of his affection becomes engaged?

I think by confessing his feelings, he's butting in...

[Kentl]

[Napoleon17]

Originally Posted by RK Lover

1. Why is the woman a static object? Can't she make her own choices? And yet you suggested that Nate was being chauvinistic...

No, I didn't suggest he was being chauvinistic. Just simplistic.

2. By the logic of your example, it's fine for someone to rob a bank (taking other people's money) and buy a yacht, because the person would be happy afterwards with their yacht.

Except telling someone how you feel is not illegal... robbing a bank is.

3. How do you know that the girl wouldn't have ended up happier with the first guy? Or even that everyone might end up happier if the "Jerry" doesn't interfere?

I know, because I saw the godly and successful marriage that they had.

4. What if when you were engaged to your wife, you were forced to correspond by mail, and another guy (who believed he loved your wife more than you did) took the letters, burned them, and sent her his own?

Then I would probably be alone for a while...

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

I know, because I saw the godly and successful marriage that they had.

But the other could have been just as godly and successful.

That's just the point.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

I know, because I saw the godly and successful marriage that they had.

The point is that you DIDN'T see whether or not the original engagement might have gone on to produce a godly and successful marriage, one that might have made all involved happier.

So no, you don't know.

*edit* beaten by Nate

[RK_lover]

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

No, I didn't suggest he was being chauvinistic. Just simplistic.

I apologize, after re-reading your post I see that's the case.

Except telling someone how you feel is not illegal... robbing a bank is.

Fair enough...but telling someone who is engaged/taken/with someone else isn't right in my opinion, because they've already chosen (wisely or not) someone else.

I know, because I saw the godly and successful marriage that they had.

That still doesn't mean that things could've worked out better without interference...

Then I would probably be alone for a while...

You wouldn't try to re-pursue her, once she was with the other guy?

[Napoleon17]

Originally Posted by Nate

But the other could have been just as godly and successful.

That's just the point.

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

The point is that you DIDN'T see whether or not the original engagement might have gone on to produce a godly and successful marriage, one that might have made all involved happier.

So no, you don't know.

*edit* beaten by Nate

Very true. However, judging from what I heard from Jerry and Macel, all parties involved were actually better off because of what happened. Jerry apologized to the guy, the guy forgave him, they eventually all had families and were friends again. It is true though that it is possible for the opposite situation to have been even happier, though. That is a good point.

Originally Posted by RK_lover

I apologize, after re-reading your post I see that's the case.

That's okay, I realize it came off weird.

Fair enough...but telling someone who is engaged/taken/with someone else isn't right in my opinion, because they've already chosen (wisely or not) someone else.

Fair enough. If we disagree, we disagree. There's nothing wrong with that.

That still doesn't mean that things could've worked out better without interference...

True.

You wouldn't try to re-pursue her, once she was with the other guy?

I don't know what I would do in that situation... I don't think it would be sinful of me to try, though, if I did. Idk.

[Nate]

To lighten the mood:

Related to TahoeJeff's love of failed proposals in movies, this whole idea is partly why The Princess Bride is one of my all-time favorites.

Traditionally, we would expect to see the prince and the princess as the "couple," with the rogue playing the part of the other suitor. This is kind of the Robin Hood model, where the rogue from the forest woos the fair maiden who would otherwise have been engaged to a prince. Normally, we cheer for the underdog wooer, rather than the betrothed.

In The Princess Bride, however, the roles are entirely reversed. It is the rogue who is the betrothed, whom the prince is trying to woo away the princess from. Through a delightful plot twist, the roles switch once again, and the prince and princess are betrothed as we'd expect, with the rogue playing the traditional fairy tale part of the woodsy, sexy [well, ok... not in this case], mysterious suitor from across the sea, trying to stop the marriage from occurring.

The difference is that The Princess Bride is, self-referentially, about "true love." The rogue, who now is forced to play the part of the wooer, is the real betrothed, and the other is only a stand-in who weaseled his way into a betrothal. It's the switch that makes cheering for the rogue suitor different from the normal fairy tale story. The rogue was already betrothed, and has already had his love stolen away by another.

I think these kinds of stories can show us more about true love than we'd normally admit or think about. Buttercup refuses to be swayed by Humperdinck's proposals, even though by all accounts it seems that she'd be happier, safer, more loved, treated better. This is a fairy tale, of course, and girls aren't usually kidnapped by pirates and forced into engagements by their wooers from afar. It still offers a great moral.

Without the first bit of the movie for context, the story is only the normal one of an outsider stealing away someone else's betrothed. With it, though, it becomes a morality tale of the virtues of commitment, promises, and true love. I can't think of a better movie to demonstrate how true love should act when faced with temptations from outside.

[RK_lover]

I think my main problem with trying to tell someone how you feel after they're already engaged to someone else is that you have just as much (maybe more) of a chance to make things worse...it just seems too risky, even if you jump in honestly (not burning letters or anything of that nature.

[Novan_Leon]

Originally Posted by Nate

I'm not sure why you bother asking, if the questions are only targeted at me. I've been more than clear.

There are no circumstances, I don't think, under which this action would be appropriate.

Yes, move on. If you want to make yourself miserable, though, feel free.

The inner harboring is, as I said, a form of covetousness.

Interesting. So do you think having feelings for a girl who's dating another guy is also a form of covetousness? At what point do your romantic feelings cross over the line from being a perfectly legitimate emotional attraction to being covetous?

Are all romantic feelings a form of covetousness?

[rock_show_host]

Exodus 20:17
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

I think it's interesting that the commandment uses "your neighbor's wife" as a specific example. Also, given that there's another commandment forbidding adultery (which includes lust), it seems like coveting has to encompass a lot more than just sexual attraction.