Another question for the conservatives here

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

martha

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Mar 30, 2001
Messages
42,544
Location
Orange County and all over the goddamn place
And I'm just curious this time.

Does it bother you that Edge and Larry have each had several children without being married to the mothers of their children? (Yet they profess Christianity.)

If it doesn't bother you, why not?

If it does bother you, why?
 
No it does not bother me. Love is not a piece of paper, or a legal term.
 
That should probably be another thread, what is a conservative?
 
I'm asking the "conservatives" because many times conservatives tend to disagree with the ideas of living together before marriage, pre-marital sex, and children outside of marriage. I wanted to know what they thought about musicians and people they admire disregarding what many Christians and conservatives feel to be basic rules of Christianity.
 
Wow, Christians disagreeing with each other on certain issues. Imagine that.

Nowhere in the Bible is premarital sex explicitly forbidden, but there are plenty of references to "sexual immorality," and I'm pretty sure monogamy was the ideal by the time Jesus walked the earth.

It seems to me that the reason that premarital sex and Christians marrying non-Christians are considered to be "sin" is because they're considered to be universally harmful. Only God and the people involved know for sure.
 
And so was early marriage. Mary was likely a ripe old age of 13 when she had Jesus. Considering the life expectancy then was only a fraction of what it is now, they had to get married young.

Indeed...premarital sex is not mentioned explicitly (if you actually look at the original texts, rather than the misinterpretations), but that is only because it wasn't common. You got married right away.

Melon
 
There are many people on this earth that I admire, and there is not a single one of them that is perfect. I can't say that I agree with the choices they've made, but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
melon said:
And so was early marriage. Mary was likely a ripe old age of 13 when she had Jesus. Considering the life expectancy then was only a fraction of what it is now, they had to get married young.

Indeed...premarital sex is not mentioned explicitly (if you actually look at the original texts, rather than the misinterpretations), but that is only because it wasn't common. You got married right away.

Melon

This is true. Perhaps Paul wasn't being flippant when he said that exceptionally horny young Christians should find someone and get married right away.
 
Uh, guys, the Bible does indeed name "fornication" as a "sin." In fact, I've always thought it's funny that the Church generally treats homosexuality as an "abomination" yet basically turns a blind eye to fornication unless it involves adultery -- and yet the Bible makes a much bigger deal of "fornication" than it does "homosexuality." Yes, yes, I understand the biblical references are all subject to context, changing interpretations, etc., etc., hence, my quotation marks.

I'm philosophical about "fornication." Try not to "fornicate" if you're putting yourself at risk of unwanted pregnancy, contracting std's or hurting someone (i.e. "using" them). Otherwise, I don't have any feelings about it one way or the other.
 
Last edited:
"Fornication" is not a Biblical word. They didn't use that word in the Bible, no more than they used the 19th century invented word "homosexuality."

What I picked up in a dictionary once:

"The word 'fornication' had a lowly beginning suitable to what has long been the low moral status of the act to which it refers. The Latin word 'fornix,' from which 'fornicti,' the ancestor of fornication, is derived, meant 'a vault, an arch.' The term also referred to a vaulted cellar or similar place where prostitutes plied their trade. This sense of 'fornix' in Late Latin yielded the verb fornicr, ?to commit fornication,? from which is derived fornicti, ?whoredom, fornication.? Our word is first recorded in Middle English about 1303."

So it appears that "fornicating" in the Biblical times could have referred to prostitution, just as "homosexuality" likely referred pagan temple prostitution. It is interesting how that word "prostitution" always end up popping up...

But I get what you're getting at. What has always amused me is how divorce is condemned so many times in the Gospels, and, yet, where are all these "good Christians" trying to criminalize divorce? Of course, my favorite is the mistranslation of "porneia" ("blood mixing"; incest) for "adultery" in Matthew, giving a supposed "exception clause" allowing divorce. Well, Henry VIII needed some excuse in the 1500s, now didn't he? ;)

Melon
 
Last edited:
melon, I'm not understanding you. Are you saying the word "fornication" never occurs in the modern day Bible or are you saying that it never occurred in the original text, or both?
 
martha said:
So, is anyone who frequently posts conservative opinions besides STING2 gonna answer me? Or are we going to debate Biblical semantics? Which is fine. It's interesting.

Well, ultimately my answer is...it bothers me to the extent that I am familiar with the Edge's and Larry's personal lives, which is almost zero.
 
pub crawler said:
melon, I'm not understanding you. Are you saying the word "fornication" never occurs in the modern day Bible or are you saying that it never occurred in the original text, or both?

Actually, I need to correct myself slightly. I went to dictionary.com, and found this curious entry:

fornication

in every form of it was sternly condemned by the Mosaic law (Lev. 21:9; 19:29; Deut. 22:20, 21, 23-29; 23:18; Ex. 22:16). (See ADULTERY.) But this word is more frequently used in a symbolical than in its ordinary sense. It frequently means a forsaking of God or a following after idols (Isa. 1:2; Jer. 2:20; Ezek. 16; Hos. 1:2; 2:1-5; Jer. 3:8,9).

Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

I mean that words change meaning over time, and to take the Bible and apply modern conventions and taboos to it would be a big mistake.

Melon
 
martha said:
Ok. Now I have two whole answers. (Thanks, speedy.)

what, isn't that about 1/2 of conservative membs in interference?:wave:
 
I'm not sure if I am a conservative. I've always been curious about the american way of categorizing people.

I think premarital sex is often discouraged not simply because the bible says so, but because it will have various & potentially negative emotional repercussions. For eg, the woman might feel insecure about the man marrying her after prem-sex because she might think that he is marrying for the sex (that is, if the sex was good). Other reasons include sex bringing the r/ship to a different level and complicates things.

To answer the question, Flag PolePear, Edge & Morleigh's life before marriage doesn't bother me.

f
 
To the original question, Martha has asked two:

First, do you consider sex outside of marriage wrong? This is probably a good topic for another thread (with a diverse array of interpretations), but unwarranted here as I feel you really don't care about the answer to this question.

Second, if sex outside of marriage is wrong, what shall we do concerning the couple of members of U2? Not being in a place to provide counsel before the actions took place, there is really nothing you can do other than love them as a brother and sister.
 
The other question is what is marriage? Does it require a formal ceremony, or can it be an implicit contract between two people?

St. Paul, funny enough, was for eliminating ceremonial marriage altogether, but kept it out of the "weakness" of the people around him.

Melon
 
Wow, I just wrote a big ol' journal entry about this the other day (which was probably pretty long and boring). I don't feel like typing it all out again tho. lol. To keep it simple, I will say that I believe marriage is not a ceremony or a piece of paper, but a committment between two people before God and each other. In my very humble opinion, weddings are to true marriage what baptism is to true faith...an outward symbol of an inner reality. You can be a Christian without being baptized (of course I am coming from my own theological background here) and you can be married without a wedding. But whether or not it might be wise to do both is another question entirely.

But as I don't know if I fit the "conservative" moniker...actually every day I feel myself fitting it less and less...maybe I shouldn't be replying at all. ;)
 
sulawesigirl4 said:
Wow, I just wrote a big ol' journal entry about this the other day (which was probably pretty long and boring). I don't feel like typing it all out again tho. lol. To keep it simple, I will say that I believe marriage is not a ceremony or a piece of paper, but a committment between two people before God and each other. In my very humble opinion, weddings are to true marriage what baptism is to true faith...an outward symbol of an inner reality. You can be a Christian without being baptized (of course I am coming from my own theological background here) and you can be married without a wedding. But whether or not it might be wise to do both is another question entirely.

But as I don't know if I fit the "conservative" moniker...actually every day I feel myself fitting it less and less...maybe I shouldn't be replying at all. ;)

:yes: Well said.
 
I agree that there are certain words that have changed meanings over time and so forth, so there is room for interpretation as to if the bible actually condemns sex before marriage.

But the majority of organized Christian churches interpret it to mean that it is wrong. Now with that being said...I've always found it interesting that God chose to impregnate a woman who was not married. Now I understand that for everything to work out the way it's suppose to, she had to be a virgin, but think of the dangers he put this woman and child in. People were stoned for the smallest things at this time in history.

I've just always found this interesting.
 
:up: Sula.

Am I conservative? :huh: I'll answer anyway-

it doesn't bother me. They were/are in a loving committed relationship, for the 'long haul.'

I'm more curious how Morleigh & Edge reconciled their faith differences.......
 
martha said:
And I'm just curious this time.

Does it bother you that Edge and Larry have each had several children without being married to the mothers of their children? (Yet they profess Christianity.)

If it doesn't bother you, why not?

If it does bother you, why?

Here ya go, nbc. You talked about loving and couselling them. What do you think about what they did?
 
Back
Top Bottom