[Purple Haize]

Just like you have the Christians who hate all people who sin (even though we all do), then we also have the Christians who will willingly compromise any perfectly Biblical argument for the sake of the illusion of being "progressive".

And worse yet....those who vote for Mitt Romney!

[RubberMallet]

good thing, cuz its usually challenged pretty poorly by the limp wristed.

i do agree though that in the end, we won't be certain until we are dead and God waps us over the head and goes "you spent more time arguing about this than you did loving people and telling them about me, but here is what i really think......................................"

[ALUmnus]

Except that God has already told us what he thinks about it, pretty clearly. But I guess that only matters if you believe that Scripture is actually God's word. That used to be an easy assumption to make with LU folks. Sadly, not anymore.

[RubberMallet]

Except that God has already told us what he thinks about it, pretty clearly. But I guess that only matters if you believe that Scripture is actually God's word. That used to be an easy assumption to make with LU folks. Sadly, not anymore.

for me, yes. like i said, the its ok in Gods' eyes argument is a pretty poor one but i can't say i'm certain because my ability to interpret scriptures is fairly amateurish.

[jbock13]

Theres plenty of issues where Scripture leaves us to decide: Smoking, drinking socially, tattoos, etc. But then you have instances where the Bible is rather clear, and people just want to throw it out as if it doesn't exist.

It isn't right to hate someone because of it. That's certainly not Biblical. But the Bible is pretty clear regarding many issues.

[RubberMallet]

this is why i dont' post regularly here anymore....oh wait thats not my line.

[ALUmnus]

this is why i dont' post regularly here anymore....oh wait thats not my line.

heh, nice.

[El Scorcho]

I wasn't making a theological argument. It was a political argument.

"Marriage in God's eyes is between a man and a woman."

This is an opinion. There is nothing on this planet that can make it a fact. It doesn't matter if I believe it, you believe and most other people believe it. It is still just an opinion. In the United States we let everyone have their opinions about matters of religion. So any opinion such as the one above is completely irrelevant to a matter of U.S. law. It doesn't matter what I think God thinks. Someone else can think the opposite with just as much passion as I can.

No matter how much either of us believes, they're still just religious opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not DOMA is constitutional.

[TDDance234]

Except that God has already told us what he thinks about it, pretty clearly. But I guess that only matters if you believe that Scripture is actually God's word. That used to be an easy assumption to make with LU folks. Sadly, not anymore.

Bingo.

[4everfsu]

Except that God has already told us what he thinks about it, pretty clearly. But I guess that only matters if you believe that Scripture is actually God's word. That used to be an easy assumption to make with LU folks. Sadly, not anymore.

+1

[Purple Haize]

Except that God has already told us what he thinks about it, pretty clearly. But I guess that only matters if you believe that Scripture is actually God's word. That used to be an easy assumption to make with LU folks. Sadly, not anymore.

In the original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or Latin? Or do you mean something New School like the 1611 Authorized King James version?

[ALUmnus]

At great risk, I'll assume you're playing devil's advocate. But if that is you're thinking, why believe what you do if nothing is reliable?
Here are a couple good listens on the reliability of Scripture:
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2012 ... ology.html

http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2012 ... iable.html

[El Scorcho]

At great risk, I'll assume you're playing devil's advocate.

At perhaps equally great risk, I am going to make the assumption that you're addressing me.

But if that is you're thinking, why believe what you do if nothing is reliable?

I didn't say reliable. I said nothing on the planet can make it fact, which probably didn't convey my thought completely clearly. What I mean is that, by definition, faith isn't something that is provable. There are a lot of religious opinions and while some are more firmly rooted in history than others, they're all still relying on faith. None of them can be proven conclusively. I believe that as a Christian you have to own having faith and all the implications of that. Even if I believe with 100% confidence in my faith, it's still my faith. It's a choice I'm making to believe in something in spite of a lack of obvious concrete evidence. I'm okay with that and I'm okay with others disagreeing and having different opinions on the matter, because it isn't something that's provable. I'd happily have a conversation with them about it and give them my reasons for believing, but to argue it from a point of absolute certainty or authority would feel foolish to me.

That's a matter of religion, though.

Politically, I want to live in a nation where everyone is free to practice and believe their own faith (or lack thereof). I respect that others disagree with me on issues of faith and I don't think it would be right to use the force of law to force them to live as if they don't. I don't believe government should interfere with much of anything unless it deprives another citizen of their life or liberty. If someone having a life or exercising liberty makes me uncomfortable or offends me, that's my problem. That's my burden to bear and the price I pay for having my own liberty. The moment I disagree is the moment I subject my own life and faith to a vote. I don't want to do that. I prefer to side with liberty.

TLDR: So, for me, whether or not I agree with same-sex marriage from the perspective of my faith is irrelevant. My faith isn't demonstrably provable or necessarily the faith of others, and I don't believe in using the law to force them to live as if it is. Politically, it doesn't deprive me of my life or liberty, and it's something the government offers to other consenting adult citizens so I don't oppose it.

[jbock13]

For those who heard Rush you've heard about this, but for those of you who haven't, this is how dumb our fellow Americans are these days. And I agree with Rush, this is all caused by the media's fasination with all things gay.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/adult ... sbian.aspx

U.S. Adults Estimate That 25% of Americans Are Gay or Lesbian
Those with lower incomes, the less educated, women, and young people give the highest estimates
by Lymari Morales
Page: 12

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian. More specifically, over half of Americans (52%) estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian, including 35% who estimate that more than one in four are. Thirty percent put the figure at less than 15%.

Regardless of what you think on the issue, common sense would dictate it's not 25%. Even the discredited Kinsey studies showed that the figure was no higher than 10% (when in reality it's around 2-3%)

[Purple Haize]

At great risk, I'll assume you're playing devil's advocate. But if that is you're thinking, why believe what you do if nothing is reliable?
Here are a couple good listens on the reliability of Scripture:
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2012 ... ology.html

http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2012 ... iable.html

After much study and degree I have but a simple faith. Salvation does not depend any more on you being gay or straight then it does if you lie or cheat. I have my personal beliefs and conviction but that does not limit me from socializing or dealing with any person. Be they gay activists or gay bashers.
Do you believe that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead? For God so loved the world etc etc.

[ALUmnus]

At great risk, I'll assume you're playing devil's advocate.

At perhaps equally great risk, I am going to make the assumption that you're addressing me.

But if that is you're thinking, why believe what you do if nothing is reliable?

Sorry, I was addressing Haize. Should've quoted.

[jbock13]

At great risk, I'll assume you're playing devil's advocate. But if that is you're thinking, why believe what you do if nothing is reliable?
Here are a couple good listens on the reliability of Scripture:
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2012 ... ology.html

http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2012 ... iable.html

After much study and degree I have but a simple faith. Salvation does not depend any more on you being gay or straight then it does if you lie or cheat. I have my personal beliefs and conviction but that does not limit me from socializing or dealing with any person. Be they gay activists or gay bashers.
Do you believe that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead? For God so loved the world etc etc.

You don't have to be a gay basher to disapprove of activities. It's just that some people use hatred, others don't honestly mind.

[alabama24]

What I mean is that, by definition, faith isn't something that is provable.

El Scorcho - I am not interested in debating the topic of this thread one way or another, but I think you are mistaken about the definition of faith. Webster's defines faith as "something that is believed especially with strong conviction." I have "faith" that the earth is round. I also have "faith" that that statement is factual. I have "faith" that it is not merely "opinion."

Sometimes the word "faith" is used in a lesser sense. It is very important not to confuse the sense of the word. I have "faith" that Alabama will do really well this season. I have "faith" that they will destroy Michigan to start the season. (My wife has "faith" that Michigan will beat Alabama, but I call that stupidity ). When "faith" is used this way, it could be a blind leap, a matter of opinion, perhaps even an "educated guess." This kind of "faith" is not something provable.

Christian "faith" can be a mixture of both kinds. My faith in Jesus Christ is not a "blind leap" into irrationality. For example, there are historical evidences of a real man named Jesus. There are real people who have testified to events that happened in his (and their) life/lives.

Another thing to consider is that a statement does not have to be imminently verifiable to be true or false. It may be true that alien life exists on other planets. My opinion about the issue is irrelevant to the veracity of the claim. I am either right or I am wrong.

[JK37]

Bama, I much more interested in God's definition of faith than Noah W's...

You are differentiating faith in degrees. Some of your examples are faith, some are not as they are "fact". If quantifiable science has verified a theory as fact, then despite the factthat I have not perceived it via my own sense, it is still a fact. (We can discuss the philosophical effects of facts within facts within faith at a later time, and probably best in-person.)

Christian "faith" can be a mixture of both kinds. My faith in Jesus Christ is not a "blind leap" into irrationality. For example, there are historical evidences of a real man named Jesus.

"Christian faith." Beginning with faith, by your whole statement, it is still faith because you did not perceive His existence first-hand. Secondly, what makes such a faith Christian? It is not that he existed as a man, as you claim others have testified. For such a faith to be a Christian one, one would also have to believe that the man called Jesus was a deity. To varying degrees, BOTH of these most certainly are blind leaps.

There are real people who have testified to events that happened in [Jesus'] life.

But have you personally met any of those who have so testified?

[alabama24]

To varying degrees, BOTH of these most certainly are blind leaps.

Real faith is never a blind leap. It is ALWAYS based upon knowledge/revelation. Blind leaps are irrational, the Christian faith isn't.

[JK37]

To varying degrees, BOTH of these most certainly are blind leaps.

Real faith is never a blind leap. It is ALWAYS based upon knowledge/revelation. Blind leaps are irrational, the Christian faith isn't.

If faith is never a leap, where is the faith? What manner of faith isn't blind? If belief in something is based in fact or revelation, where is the faith in it?

At the point of blindness, faith begins. "Faith is...the evidence of things not seen." as the author of Hebrews so aptly put it (Hebrews 11:6, KJV, emphasis mine).

I do believe that through our experiences in our relationship with Christ, our faith is made more secure, and therefore feels less blind. But the initial belief is blind, which is what makes it faith; then, because it is a belief in Christ and His saving power, it is a Christian faith.

Faith in Jesus Christ for eternal salvation is irrational. There's no reason or logic which can explain it. That's why we must believe by faith; we cannot initiate our belief by knowledge already attained, especially because that knowledge is ours. If Christian faith were rational, wouldn't more believe? If you are able to definitively rationalize faith in Christ as the Son of God, and thereby His power to save us for eternity, please share; I believe we all would love to tell unbelieving friends and family in a rational way that they may believe!

[R i]

It shouldnt be a state issue.

[El Scorcho]

What I mean is that, by definition, faith isn't something that is provable.

El Scorcho - I am not interested in debating the topic of this thread one way or another, but I think you are mistaken about the definition of faith.

JK37 has pretty responded with everything I would have. I won't say any of it much better."Faith is the evidence of things unseen" is about as much as it can be summed up.

I will add, however, that God, salvation, and all of the other supernatural claims of Christianity (or any religion) are not demonstrably provable. Since those matters are claims of the supernatural they are are, by definition, not within the realm of what can be proven. This is the clear line of faith. When one begins to make claims about the supernatural in any religion, you have by definition entered the realm of faith because there is no proof of the supernatural.

To be clear, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. That's just how it is and I think Christians ought to understand and embrace that.

[JK37]

When one begins to make claims about the supernatural in any religion, you have by definition entered the realm of faith because there is no proof of the supernatural.

To be clear, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. That's just how it is and I think Christians ought to understand and embrace that.

Very well said. And to bring it back to the topic at hand, I don't believe any government should make laws on the basis of the irrational. To expect the government to make a law to state the definition of marriage in accordance with Scripture is wrong. Any law should be constructed on the basis of it's intent to protect the individual's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. This is why I don't disagree with an individual's right to enter into a same-sex relationship any more than that same individual's right to choose to use crass language, smoke or view pornography. All these things I personally find immoral, but there doesn't need to be a law against them for me to decide not to do them.

[ALUmnus]

Is the government defining marriage based on Scripture? I don't see that at all. It actually doesn't define or redefine anything. It says the federal government will only recognize a legal union between a man and a woman as marriage. Is it unconstitutional for the federal government to say it won't recognize something that it has never in its history recognized, particularly something that is not a guaranteed right? And how does DOMA take any power away from the states? It actually protects the states.