Can the Bible be Trusted?

So, it has been just about forever since I have written on this sight.A lot has happened since my last major post.I graduated from graduate school, moved from Dayton, OH to Albuquerque, NM and purchased a home.Oh yeah and started a new job.Anyway, all of these things have kept me extraordinarily busy.I will now attempt to write something coherent that I hope will generate a lot of thought amongst my readers.

I want to discuss the topic of inerrancy and authority of the protestant Biblical cannon as it is accepted today.(that being the 39 books of the Old Testament, or Hebrew Scriptures, and the 27 books of the New Testament, or Christian Scriptures).I would first like to go over some of the history of the establishment of the canon, then some of the errors that can be found in our current Bibles, and finally talk about inspiration why I think that some of the apocryphal scriptures are just as valid as the currently recognized Bible.

When I say Biblical canon I am referring to the list of books that have been chosen by church leaders to represent what the church considers to be divine teaching, in other words – what the church considers to be the words of God.For most Protestants this consists of the 39 books in the Hebrew Scriptures and the 27 books in the Christian Scriptures.So the question is how did these particular books come into enough favor to be chosen to be in the canon and how was that choice made?As most people are probably aware there were numerous writings both in the ancient Hebrew times and in the early Christian times that were considered to be important teachings of religious significance.For an excellent discussion on the Biblical canon check out the following link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon.For the most part what I am going to say here is merely a summary of the wikipedia article.As far as the canon of Hebrew Scriptures is concerned, there is no agreed upon date for its establishment. However, as late as the first century, BC there was still significant debate over whether the books of the Ketuvim (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Chronicles) should be included.No one knows when the final decision was made or how it was made but it appears that it was made prior to the writing of some of the books in the Christian Scriptures as some of them refer to quotes from the books of Psalms and Proverbs as Scripture.

The canonization of the Christian Scriptures is a little better known by historians, although an exact date is still not universally recognized.The first official list of canonical books published by the church was not until the Roman Catholic Church published the canon after the Council of Trent in 1546, but Bibles had been printed much before that, and this official declaration was a reaction to the fact the Martin Luther was removing books from the church approved canon during the reformation.The books we have in our Bible today were most likely written between ~50 and ~200 AD.As early as AD 140 there appeared a list of canonical books by Marcion that included parts of the gospel of Luke as well as 10 of Paul’s letters.After this (around AD 200), the church agreed upon an established canon that included the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and the letters of Paul.Why these books were chosen still remains a mystery.Possibly because these four gospels were among the most popular with the church at large and the letters of Paul because he was probably the most familiar teacher to the church outside of Jerusalem as is recorded in the book of Acts.The first actual record of canonical books as it appears in our Bible today came in AD 367, written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.During the early church there were many books that were considered valid works of divine origin which were later not included in the canon.These included the books of Clement, the apocalypse of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Hebrews, Acts of Paul, epistle of Barnabus, and others.There were also several books that are included in our canon that were disputed, including Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Apocalypse of John (aka Revelations).And there were several books that were outright rejected at the time which later became known as the Gnostic texts.These include Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, and many others.Why certain books were chosen and others were not around the time of the beginning of the third century is still unknown.Perhaps it was because of popularity, perhaps it was because of disputes over authorship or the doctrinal content of these books.Whatever the case, it appears that the decision to include or not to include certain books in the cannon was made by individual men, possibly the preeminent church leaders of the time.Also keep in mind that this was about the same time that many doctrines associated with the Roman Catholic Church were being introduced into Christianity.So that could have had something to do with the decisions on the canon as well.

The development of the canon is a critical piece of knowledge for Christians because it raises some interesting questions.How can we assume that the Bible is the absolute word of God when it was put together by mere mortal men?How do we know that other books originally considered to be of divine origin are in fact not?What exactly makes this particular selection of 66 books inerrant and infallible?Well, I don’t really know the answer to these first two questions but the answer to the third is easily found through careful study of the Bible.The answer is in fact that the Bible as we know it today is in fact not without error and is not infallible.There are some teachings in it that are very good and should be applied to our lives.There are others, however, that should not be followed at all and in fact conflict with the rest of the Bible.

-The first of these I would like to bring up is the absolute dichotomy between the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and the God of the Christian Scriptures.Consider the fact that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures was vengeful, aggressive, violent, etc.There are numerous times when he commanded the Israelites to wipe out an entire people, men, women, and children.There was a time when the Israelites were instructed after a war to save the young women for themselves and to destroy everything else.How does this compare with what we know of Jesus from the Christian Scriptures.He was merciful, loving, kind, forgiving, etc.No, he did not tolerate sin but he found ways to forgive others that were caught in sin such as the “Samaritan woman at the well” and the woman who had been caught in the act of adultery.Consider the following passages concerning the two different Gods of the Bible.

And unto him that smiteth thee on

the cheek offer also the other...

Luke 6:29

And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, 

"If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, 

and consume thee and thy fifty". And there came down fire from heaven, 

and consumed him and his fifty. 

2 Kings 1:9, 10 

...there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him [Elisha]...

and [he] cursed themin the name of the Lord. And there came forth 

two she-bears out of the wood, and tare forty-two children of them.

2 Kings 2:23,24

-These next contradictions from the Bible were primarily taken from an essay entitled The Emperor has no Clothes by Wayne Adkins.This essay can be found at www.nakedemperor.netfirms.com.While I don’t agree with everything Mr. Adkins has to say and I think in some aspects of his beliefs he is dead wrong, he has found many contradictions within the Bible that cannot be explained away.The first of these is the contradiction between the two genealogies leading from King David to Jesus found in Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3.These two family trees are very different with only two names matching between the two lists.Also Matthew’s version has 27 names from David to Jesus while Luke’s version has 42.These two genealogies cannot both be accurate.There is one other problem with both of them together.The prophecies concerning Jesus from the Hebrew Scriptures say that Jesus will be a descendant of King David, however both of these lists of family names trace Jesus’ family through Joseph, who, according to Scripture, was not related to Jesus in any way.So shouldn’t they have traced the family line back through Mary?

-Matthew 27:9-10 refers to a prophecy made by Jeremiah about what the priests would do with the thirty pieces of silver that Judas returned to them after he betrayed Jesus.The problem is that this prophecy was not given by Jeremiah at all but can be found in Zechariah 11:12-13“I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.” (NIV)

-In Matthew 10:9-10, Jesus is preparing his disciples to go out to minister in his name.He is instructing them on what to take and not to take.This same story is related in Mark 6:8-9 and Luke 9:3.In Matthew Jesus says, “Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workmen is worthy of his meat.”And in Luke, Jesus says, “Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.But the problem is found in Mark where the following is attributed to Jesus, “And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse; but to be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.So the question is, "Were they supposed to take staves or not?"

-In 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 the story of David taking a census of the people of Israel is given.The two texts relate two very different motivations for why David did this.2 Samuel says, “And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, go, number Israel and Judah.”, but 1 Chronicles records it this way, “And Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel.”So once again we are left with a question, Why did David number the people, did God make him do it or Satan?

-Although commonly thought to be written by Moses, most Bible scholars will tell you that the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures were written by a number of different authors.This can be especially seen when they get their stories wrong between them.In Genesis 6, God commands Noah to take two of every animal onto the ark, then in Genesis 7 verse 2 a different author takes over and God commands Noah to take two of every animal but the clean animals and the fowl.He is commanded to take seven of each of these.Later in the passage (verses 8-9, and 15-16) the original author takes back over and Noah obeys the command to take two of every animal, this time mentioning both clean and unclean and the fowl of the air.So did Noah disobey God by only taking two of the clean animals and the birds or not?

-Up to now, the primary contradictions I have pointed out have been minor language errors and things like that.Many will say, “Well, the doctrinal issues of the Bible are still valid.”And for the most part I would believe them, but there are a few passages that have always bugged me concerning the way to salvation.Throughout the course of the Bible, salvation is said to be received as a free gift by faith in Christ (Romans 3:27-28, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc).Paul says in Romans 4:3-7, “For what saith the scriptures? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.”However, James, in his epistle, seems to have a different story.James 2:21-24 says the following, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”This doctrine of works producing faith or faith producing works and both being necessary for salvation can also be found in the teachings of Jesus.In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus is relating the story of the last judgment, but he does not admit people into heaven based on their faith in Christ, instead he admits people into heaven based on their good works toward others on this earth.I have always found this story to be interesting and I believe the church commonly overlooks this when formulating their doctrinal stance.

Currently Reading Our Endangered Values : America's Moral Crisis By Jimmy Carter see related

I just got done reading a fantastic book.  I would recommend this book to any and all Christians who are concerned with the moral state of our country and especially this administration.  This book is "Our Endangered Values" by Jimmy Carter.  He explains what is going on in our world today both from his experience as US President and from his devout belief in Christ.  The following is just a small exerpt of some of the practices of our current government that he exposes.

"a report from Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, formerly in charge of Abu Ghraib, described a visit to an eleven-year-old detainee in the cell block that housed high-risk prisoners.   The general recalled that the child was weeping, and 'he told me he was almost twelve,' and that 'he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother.'  Children like this eleven-year-old have been denied the right to see their parents, a lawyer, or anyone else, and were not told why they were detained.  A Pentagon spokesman told Mr. Hersh that 'age is not a determining factor in detention.' "

This, along with many other things pointed out in the book, both angers me and also makes me feel extreemely guilty for ever voting for our current president.  I can guarantee I will become more informed the next time I vote and not base my decision on what the church or others tell me about a candidate.  I only hope the American people have the sense to do the same so that we don't ever end up in the situation we are in now again.

I decided to go back today and reply to a response I received on my homosexual marriage discussion.  (Someone keeps bugging me to do this!).  The following response was posted by TheWoodBeArtist.  (To see my original post go to the Saturday, October 15, 2005 post).

I appreciate this post as it has forced me to re-examine, and to a degree, adjust my position on gay marriage.  I do disagree with what I believe to be your position, although it is not entirely clear.  I would like to provide a rebuttal to your post concerning this issue, but I want you to know that I admire and share your repulsion for the prejudice and hate that many Christians show toward gays.  I use the word “Christian” loosely because the attitude that I am referring to is certainly not Christian.    I will address your points in reverse order. 

5.      Civil unions should be OK, but marriage has always been between a man and a woman and should be reserved for such relationships.

This is the argument I like to call the “My logic leads me to one conclusion but I feel guilty so I am going to mess around with semantics in order to alleviate my guilt” argument.  These are people who believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of marriage; they just can’t bring themselves to use that word for homosexuals.  So let’s look at the definition of marriage:

            I am one of those who hold to this position, but I assure you that it is not out of guilt.  It is a bit prejudice and an invalid point of debate to assign a universal motivation to anyone who holds to such a view.  I believe that homosexuals should not be deprived of any rights in society or discriminated against in any way because of their sexual preference.  The reality is that their situation is simply different than those in a traditional marriage.  To deny this fact, one would have to be living in a theoretical world.  Maybe in this world the government could pass a law that would immediately give homosexuals the right to procreate biologically.  In the real world however, our society has charged the government with regulating certain aspects of our lives such as marriage, divorce, and child custody.  In a traditional marriage, custody rights are debated in a mother vs. father situation, but in a homosexual marriage, both are the same gender, so we need a different set of rules.  That’s just the way it is. 

            As for the definition of marriage, you quoted from Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, but you did not use a law dictionary.  I believe a law dictionary is more appropriate since that is what is used when writing or interpreting laws.

            Marriage: 1: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law 2: the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

            Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996  http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=63/634e8e4d4e93fc49502a0d4ec5df4166

4.      Homosexual marriage poses a threat to heterosexual marriage.

This argument is one of the illogical I have ever heard. 

            I agree with this argument and would never use it to support my position.  I believe that heterosexuals have done more to destroy marriage than legalizing gay marriage would do.  I do believe that it would be practical and beneficial to society if a distinction is made between the two.

3.      Homosexuality is not natural and therefore homosexual relationships should not be condoned.

This argument basically says look at animal life in nature.

            This is another argument that I would not use to support my position, but I believe that you have misrepresented it.  This in itself is not a reason to make gay marriage illegal, but the obvious fact is that homosexual intimacy is not natural.  You don’t have to go look at animal life to figure that out.  There are some animals that have some strange procreation techniques, but that doesn’t change the fact that for humans homosexual sex just doesn’t work right.  If there is a gene or some form of heredity that causes homosexuality, it would quickly be eradicated via natural selection.

2.      Homosexual marriage should be illegal because every child deserves to have a mother and a father.  In other words, homosexual marriage is harmful to the children.

 This argument is actually good in that it has no religious connotation to it. However, there are still problems with this argument.

            I do believe that every child deserves to have a mother and a father.  Sadly, because of the depravity of humankind, and sometimes due to tragic loss of life, many children will not.  In an ideal world, every child would have a loving mom and dad, but this is something many children in traditional homes don’t have.  I must grant you this point because I could never tell an orphan that although a homosexual woman wants to adopt him, he must stay in the orphanage because no heterosexual couples are willing to adopt him.   Please note though, that I believe homosexual adoption and homosexual marriage are separate issues.

1.      Marriage is sacred before God and He ordained it as a relationship between a man and a woman so therefore it should remain that way.

There are a few things wrong with this argument.  First of all this gets very close to legislating the doctrine of a particular religion and therefore violating the “establishment” clause of the Constitution.

            I won’t spend much time on this except to say, I do believe that it would be contrary to the constitution to legislate a doctrine of a religion purely for that religion’s sake, but it is a Christian doctrine not to commit murder too.  Obviously there are other reasons we would outlaw murder, and I believe that there are other reasons to maintain a traditional definition of marriage in our society.

            To better define my position, I believe that as a nation we must decide how we are going to structure our society to promote the well-being of the people.  I believe that the right to privacy should be promoted and therefore I do not agree with any sodomy laws.  I believe homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy physically and emotionally, and is not something we should promote in our society.  If we legalize homosexual marriage, it will unleash the public school system to promote the homosexual lifestyle as just as desirable and acceptable as heterosexual.  Homosexuality may then increase and along with it, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.  To legalize gay marriage would also immediately inundate private companies and health insurance companies with thousands of new dependents for benefits.  Many HIV-positive patients could then marry someone with an employee health insurance plan and the company providing benefits would be legally bound to cover them.  This could be what breaks the back of our ailing health care system. 

            To address your introduction, I must say that it was a clever trick to turn the burden of proof around backwards. 

I am going to take a little different approach to making this point than I have previously.  Since, in free society, the burden of proof for whether or not an activity should be illegal lies on the side trying to make it illegal, I am going to assume that homosexual marriage should be legal and try to prove myself wrong.

            As you know, in a formal debate, the burden of proof is on the side that wants to change the status quo.  That status quo for centuries has been that marriage is between a man and a woman.  If you want to change that I would like to see some positive reasons to do so.  While you have done a good job stating five opposing arguments the way you see them and then antagonize them.  It is quite another to give us clear and convincing reasons to change the status quo.  You have also the tendency to criticize a single argument at a time, shoot it down and declare victory over the entire debate.  The case against legalizing gay marriage consists of many intertwined arguments. Any one argument is not enough to make the case, but all together, they are quite compelling.  We do not have the space to deal with them all now, but consider the drastic social and economic repercussions this action would have on our society.

            In closing, I want to point out that your line of reasoning quickly spirals out of control.  If we change the traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex couples for the sake of not discriminating, we must also include polygamous relationship, minors, brother and sisters, fathers and daughters, and about any other combination you can imagine. 

First of all, let me thank you for actually making a well thought, logical response and not resorting to name-calling.  I appreciate that, although your position is still wrong.  Since it is your opinion that I only argue one point at a time and then declare victory in the whole debate (which I did not do, I merely declared victory over that one point), I will try to keep everything intertwined so as to discuss this issue in its entirety and therefore demonstrate why homosexual marriage should be legal. 

            I will start by looking at how homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual relationships and how they are the same.  The most obvious difference is that of gender differences.  This leads to the inability for a homosexual couple to procreate without some kind of external assistance such as surrogate mothers or sperm doners.  However, this is not actually different from some heterosexual couples.  Because of medical issues, some heterosexual couples are unable to procreate on their own as well.  The question is do these differences have any bearing on whether or not the couple should be allowed to get married?   Well, if we decide that procreation is required for marriage do we test every engaged heterosexual couple to see if they fit the criteria?  You mentioned child custody cases.  It is true that sometimes courts get caught up with emotions when determining child custody and this is why the mother is sometimes favored over the father.  However, this should not be the case and in most cases it is not.  The gender of the particular parents in question should not be an issue.  Instead which parent is able to provide the child with the best possible care is how the decision is made.  This can incorporate a lot of issues such as history of abuse, income level, family situation, etc.  To say that a person is not able to raise their kids simply because of their gender is simply prejudicial. 

            Let’s look at how homosexual couples are similar to heterosexual couples.  There are much more similarities than there are differences.  For example, these relationships are compromised of two people who care about each other and are willing to commit their lives to each other.  They have arguments and disagreements just like other couples.  They go about their lives, go shopping, go to work, go to parties, etc. just like heterosexual couples.  So, why do some people think that they deserve to be discriminated against just because of whom they choose to spend their life with?  Some people would say, “Well, I think that homosexuals should have all the rights of marriage, but it should not be called marriage, maybe civil union.”  Let me ask you this.  If someone were to tell you that you had all the rights of a citizen of this country but we were not going to call you a citizen but merely a “occupant” would that be treating you as an equal?  No, it would not.  In order to treat people equally we must not make up special categories in which to put them in our society.  They must be allowed to engage in society just as any other member of society is able to.  Remember the “separate but equal” arguments to justify segregation.  Supposedly the black people in our country were given the same rights as the whites but they were kept separate.  This is exactly the same argument, only reworded, when people talk about “civil unions” as opposed to marriage.  If they really believe “civil unions” are the way to go then marriage should be abolished all together and all citizens should be given the opportunity to get “civil unions.”

            There was once a time in our country that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman of the same color and marriages between people of different colors was not recognized.  Most people that oppose gay marriage would agree that this definition of marriage that discriminates based on color is wrong and should not be allowed in our society, so why do they want discrimination based on gender?  The definition of certain institutions in our society needs to be changed from time to time to correct for prejudices and biases that get incorporated into our laws.  If we are to use the argument that the definition of marriage has always been one way and should not be changed then we must go back to only allowing marriages between people of the same color.  That is where the logic eventually will lead you.  Now, people will respond, “But your logic will lead you to approve polygamy, incest, and all kinds of other types of relationships.”  This is true only to a certain extent.  Marriage needs to be considered as a contractual relationship between adults.  If this is the case then if three adults want to enter into this relationship, then they should be allowed to.  However, notice that this precludes minors as well as animals entering into the marriage relationship.  This contractual relationship must be regulated by the state to prevent it from infringing on the rights of other individuals.  We do not have the right to not live in a society in which gay marriage is recognized.  We do however, have the right not to be forced into contracts we don’t want to join, so the government could make a law that says you cannot be forced into marriage, but they cannot make a law that says two men are not allowed to get married.  The government could also require relatives who wish to get married to not have children as this would prevent genetic diseases that could come up.  Overall, though we need to ensure that everyone in our society has the same rights of marriage.

            Now, to address some of the specific topics you mentioned in your rebuttal.  First of all, lets look at where the burden of proof lies.  Yes, it is true that in an ordinary debate, it is with the side that desires to change the status quo.  However, this is not an ordinary situation since we are not really talking about a burden of proof but about whether or not something should be legal or illegal.  In our society, we assume that all actions are legal unless there is a reason to make it illegal.  If we were to do the opposite (assume all actions are illegal unless there is sufficient reason to make it legal) we would be living in a dictatorship.  Therefore, once again I must point out that the burden of proof is on the side wishing to make homosexual marriage illegal.  It is true that our society has done this without providing this burden of proof, but that does not change the fact that it is incumbent on society to provide this burden of proof.  However, just to show good faith I will tell you why we, as a society, should legalize gay marriage.  The most obvious reason is to treat every member of our society equally as is written in our Constitution.  Amendment 14 says that every citizen has the right to equal treatment under the law, so a very good reason to legalize gay marriage would be to not violate our own Constitution.  Also, it has the possibility to increase revenue to the government.  There may be individuals who do not make enough money to have to pay income tax, however, when their income is combined with that of another they will have to pay taxes.  This would also go a long way to establishing stability in the homosexual community and may even contribute to decreasing the spread of AIDS by encouraging monogamy between homosexuals.  Family units and committed relationships are one of the building blocks of our society, so how can encouraging the creation of more families and more committed relationships be detrimental to society.  In fact, it would benefit our society by encouraging people to be committed to one person for their lives instead of moving from partner to partner.

            Let’s talk about what you said about homosexuality being unhealthy emotionally and physically.  Can you provide some evidence of this?  I don’t see how homosexuality is any more unhealthy than just plain living.  Just because you are homosexual does not mean you have to trade partners and spread sexually transmitted diseases as well as AIDS.  In fact encouraging committed, monogamous relationships would probably decrease the spread of these diseases within the homosexual community.  Just because we teach our children about the reality of homosexuals does not mean we are encouraging or discouraging that lifestyle.  Do you think that by teaching our children about the KKK we are encouraging that lifestyle?  No, absolutely not.  Many people think that we must be in denial about the existence of homosexuals in order to not encourage this lifestyle.  Simply the fact of the government legalizing something is not encouraging it.  Does the government encourage drinking alcohol, gambling, or smoking?  All of these activities are legal in our country but I don’t think any of us would say that the government is encouraging them.  Just because we don’t personally agree with a particular lifestyle does not give us the right to turn the people who practice that lifestyle into criminals unless they are violating the rights of others.  Two men choosing to marry are not violating anyone else’s rights. 

            Finally, to address your point regarding health insurance companies.  This argument is flawed for a couple of reasons.  First of all, every insurance company has a pre-existing condition clause.  This means that if I get my girlfriend pregnant, and then we decide to get married (while she is still pregnant), my insurance company will not cover her pregnancy since it is a pre-existing condition.  This would apply the same to homosexual couples where one of the members has AIDS.  The insurance companies would not be required to cover the treatment for his condition because it was pre-existing.  Another fallacy of this argument is that it assumes that the majority of homosexual couples are composed of one person who is covered by insurance and another who is not.  It does not account for those couples where both people already have insurance coverage or where both people already do not.  I seriously doubt if legalizing gay marriage would create the burden on the health care system that WoodBeArtist says it will.  Also, even if it did, does that make it right to deny these people the right to marriage?  Smoking and obesity kill more people every year than does AIDS as a result of a homosexual relationship but we are not keeping smokers or obese people from marrying because of the increased burden they would put on the health care system because it would be wrong of us to do so. 

            Let me conclude by saying that not only is it wrong according to our Constitution to ban homosexual marriage but it is also the unchristian thing to do.  How are we to minister to homosexuals while at the same time denying them the basic rights afforded to others in our society?  Are homosexuals really going to want to become Christians when the church treats them this way?  Would Jesus have campaigned tirelessly for a ban on homosexual marriage or would he have gone to dinner with them and loved them so that they would want to change their lifestyle to please Him?  It is not our place as Christians to say that homosexual marriage should be illegal, instead it is our responsibility to love everyone as Christ loved them and to minister to them so that they desire to come to Him.

Currently Reading The Qur'an (Oxford World's Classics) By M. A. S. Abdel Haleem see related

Some passages I found interesting in the course of my reading:

2:62  The believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians – all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good – will have their rewards with their Lord.  No fear for them, nor will they grieve.

2:148  Each community has its own direction to which it turns: race to do good deeds and wherever you are, God will bring you together.  God has power to do everything.

2:177  Goodness does not consist in turning your face towards East or West.  The truly good are those who believe in God and the Last Day, in the angels, the Scripture, and the prophets; who give away some of their wealth, however much they cherish it, to their relatives, to orphans, the needy, travelers and beggars, and to liberate those in bondage; those who keep up the prayer and pay the prescribed alms; who keep pledges whenever they make them; who are steadfast in misfortune, adversity, and times of danger.  These are the ones who are true, and it is they who are aware of God.

3:7  It is He who has sent this Scripture down to you [Prophet].  Some of its verses are definite in meaning – these are the cornerstone of the Scripture – and others are ambiguous.  The perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and to pin down a specific meaning of their own: only God knows the true meaning.

3:55  God said, “Jesus, I will take you back and raise you up to Me: I will purify you of the disbelievers.  To the Day of Resurrection I will make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieved.  Then you will all return to Me and I will judge between you regarding your differences.”

3:64  Say, “People of the Book, let us arrive at a statement that is common to us all: we worship God alone, we ascribe no partner to Him, and none of us takes others beside God as lords.”  If they turn away, say, “Witness our devotion to Him.”

3:79  No person to whom God had given the Scripture, wisdom, and prophethood would ever say to people, “Be my servants, not God’s.” [He would say], “You should be devoted to God because you have taught the Scripture and studied it closely.”

3:84  Say [Muhammad], “We [Muslims] believe in God and in what has been sent down to us and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes.  We believe in what has been given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord.  We do not make a distinction between any of the [prophets].  It is to Him that we devote ourselves.”

5:13  you [Prophet] will always find treachery in all but a few of them.  Overlook this and pardon them: God loves those who do good.  (speaking of the Children of Israel)

5:45-48  In the Torah We prescribed for them a life for a life, and eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and equal wound for a wound: if anyone forgoes this out of charity, it will serve as atonement for his bad deeds.  Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are doing grave wrong. We sent Jesus, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Torah that had been sent before him: We gave him the Gospel with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Torah already revealed – a guide and lesson for those who take heed of God.  So let the followers of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down in it.  Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are lawbreakers.  We sent to you [Muhammad] the Scripture with the truth, confirming the Scriptures that came before it, and with final authority over them: so judge between them according to what God has sent down.  Do not follow their whims, which deviate from the truth that has come to you.  We have assigned a law and a path to each of you.  If God had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to God and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.

10:93  We settled the Children of Israel in a good place and provided good things as sustenance for them.

17:36  Do not follow blindly what you do not know to be true: ears, eyes, and heart, you will be questioned about all these.

17:104 After his (Moses) death, We told the Children of Israel, “Live in the land, and when the promise of the Heareafter is fulfilled, We shall bring you to the assembly of all people.”

Tell me what you think