Cummins to Brown, 4-14-98:
--------------------------
DB:
-To some considerable degree, it is an example of the lack of true
-clarity in the Bible, that there are so many interpretations of a
-document that says, as most of you do seem to agree, is the 'word
-of God'.  If it is so clear, then why in heaven's name, is it so,
-that so many who ascribe to it, do not understand it?  If it were
-the word of God, it would be much more believeable to the rest of
-us, if you all would agree on just what it says.
>The Bible is clear.  People like Mark Bloss don't care what the
>Bible clearly says.  When the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality
>because it is unnatural for a man to booger another man, Bloss
>is the type of person who would argue that the verse only applies
>to heterosexuals because it is natural for a homosexual to booger
>another man.  Clarity cannot stand against such reason.
Well, I somehow doubt that you would accept the Bible's rule here,
either.  The relevant passage is:
  If a man lies with a male as with a woman,  both  of  them  have
  committed  an  abomination;  they  shall  be put to death; their
  blood is upon them.
  If a man takes a wife and her mother also, it is depravity; they
  shall be burned to death, both he and they, that there may be no
  depravity among you.
  [Leviticus 20.13-14 NRSV]
Do you believe that homosexuals should be "put to death" as  their
"blood  is upon them"?  If you don't believe that, you reject what
the Bible says.  If you do believe it, but are  not  writing  from
death row in a prison whereto you were condemned by reason of your
murder of a homosexual, then you are a hypocrite.
The  Bible  was  quite  specific  about  the use of words in these
passages.  Only in the  second,  which  describes  incest,  rather
than  homosexuality,  is  the  penalty of burning prescribed.  And
the mother of the wife is included in the burning penalty.
I doubt that you accept this rule either.
I rather think you pick and choose what to believe in the Bible.
>Cult leaders distort the Bible for their own gain.  Liberals
>like Bloss simply distort the Bible to destroy it.  None of
>this has anything to do with the lack of clarity of the Bible.
Actually Bloss is  not  as  far  off  as  you  might  think.   The
Leviticus  passage  says  "if  a  man  lies  with a male AS WITH A
WOMAN...".  If one assumes that  the  action  must  be  done  with
intent  (that is, that the man INTENDED to lie with a male as with
a woman) if a penalty is prescribed, then such a man would have to
be heterosexual to know what it is to lie "with a woman".
Intent implies knowledge.
Since the Leviticus rule plainly prescribes a penalty, it must  be
understood  to  presuppose  actor  intent.   It therefore condemns
homosexuality  only  where  practiced  by heterosexuals (who would
know what is necessary to form the requisite intent).
The only way you can avoid this interpretation  is  to  deny  that
Biblical  penalties presuppose actor intent.
But if you deny this presupposition then you shall have  to  admit
that  these  penalties  follow even where the act condemned was in
fact accidental, and not intended by the actor at all.
Frankly, I highly doubt that you believe that the  Bible  condemns
homosexuality where the act was not intentionally performed.
Bob
---------------