The
question of whether or not God makes a special, predetermined
mate for each individual has generated some interesting debate
as people continue to question the extent to which God acts
in our lives. One side argues that God does indeed make that
special person for everybody. They reason that the quest of
the individual is to seek out that mate, bringing the quest
to completion upon finding and marrying their "target"
mate. In the other camp, the opposition argues that God created
a myriad of individuals from which one is allowed to pick a
single individual of his choosing. Still a third position argues
somewhere between the two: That God did not make a select individual
mate, but a select group from which one is allowed to choose
his mate.
A problem
for those supporting the predetermined-mate view is that there
is primarily no proof for this position. Of course, there
is a select biblical case, (that is, Isaac and Rebecca), where
God did in fact provide a specific mate, but such a case can
easily be proven as an exception to the rule. God did not,
for instance, have a direct hand in electing Sarah as a wife
for Abraham. The list of marriage cases where the match is
not attributed to God grows lengthier as one considers each
individual marital case in the Bible. Such cases are entirely
too numerous to prove Isaac and Rebecca as a rule. Their case
is instead proven to be an exception.
Extra-biblically,
there is no evidence to support the predetermined-mate view.
The view itself makes too liberal a leap in order to reach
its conclusion. What then is the rule?
Perhaps
a good place to start would be in the fact that God has created
a myriad of people in the world, roughly half of which are
female, half of which are male. On these grounds, a male who
is seeking a mate would look at the female population and
seek a mate from those with whom he has contact. This, of
course, is elementary knowledge. Let me proceed therefore
by presenting you with what I refer to as the eligibility
spectrum:
People
can be placed at various points along a spectrum based on
the specific characteristics they possess, (i.e. personality,
upbringing, expectations and a host of other influencing factors).
The spectrum, therefore, represents the range of eligibility
possessed by the group of potential mates for our subject.
No doubt, there will be some individuals who are perfect matches.
These individuals would fall somewhere in the white area of
the spectrum. Likewise, there will also be individuals possessing
traits that would disqualify them completely. These individuals
would be placed somewhere along the deep purple side of the
spectrum.
(Incidentally,
those supporting the predestined-mate view would not acknowledge
the existence of a spectrum at all, arguing only for one "white"
individual. Nevertheless, I approach this topic from a rational
standpoint, having already made my case for why the predestined-mate
view is irrational). Our subject must therefore choose a mate
from a myriad of individuals who all fall somewhere along
the spectrum. Of course, some will make better mates than
others. However, when one takes into account his friendship
and acquaintence circles, his options are reduced significantly,
as only select individuals along this spectrum can be considered.
Say, for
instance, our subject knows only 7 members of the opposite
sex who can be considered mates. The sheer numbers of the
opposite sex would be reduced to those specific candidates
by a series of limitations. First, our subject seeks a mate
within a given age range. This would reduce the numbers significantly.
Similar limitations would be applied as our subject considers
geographical location, ethnicity, religion, social contact
etc. Eventually, he would arrive at the 7 candidates who would
each fall at a specific location along the spectrum.
It
can easily be seen that individual A would suit our subject
far better than any of the others. B would make a better mate
than all except A, and so on. The resulting conclusion is
that our subject ought not to seek a predetermined, perfect
mate, (as is instisted upon by those who support this view),
but one whom, in his consideration, is a better match than
the other potentials.
As we
further consider this case in the extension of reality, it
is quite plausible for our subject to meet individual C first,
for instance, after which he would develop a relationship
with C, and then commit to the relationship. This would mean
that, although A and B are better matches for our subject
than his current choice, our subject will go without that
knowledge and C will remain the mate of choice, perfect or
not.
It stands
to reason, then, that the spectrum changes constantly when
set in real time. Social circles would change, individuals
would come and go, and our subject's options would forever
be changing as both eligible individuals and ineligible individuals
enter and leave the picture. Of course, this would be irrelevant
if our subject remained in a committed relationship with individual
C, but if our subject happens to be unpaired, he would have
to pick one of these individuals during their social contact's
given duration, and remain with that individual until some
event ends the relationship.
The conclusion
is as follows: Neither of the current views suggested as solutions
to the puzzle are realistic. When one considers time, social
circles, eligibility and the numerous other factors influencing
the selection process, only a small set of principles stand
out for one seeking a mate:
