Mississippi lawmaker cites Bible passage that calls for gays to be put to death

[Tender Branson]

The punishments mentioned in the Bible no longer apply.

I'd go further and say: The Bible does no longer apply.

So we shouldn't love each other anymore?

What has the Bible to do with that ? People loved each other too before the Bible was written. People killed each other off by significant numbers because of what the bible said. So, the bible is a potentially dangerous literature to me. Therefore you should treat the Bible just as an ancient book no different to any other book and don't focus your life and political leanings on it - because you could turn into a crazy that acts on what is written into an old book.

[danny]

The punishments mentioned in the Bible no longer apply.

Impaled high above the cross the sins of the world pour out from your hands and feet. Mocked and defiled, embedded in your head are thorns. This is love. Lord, I am eternally grateful. My heart is all I have to give. Now religion has destroyed. This was never how things were meant to be. We are no longer bound by the law. In his blood we find freedom. We are saved by grace. So give me peace through these times of struggle, and hope through these times of despair. Give me the heart of a servant, so I may worship with all of my life. Your religion is dead, but Jesus, you give life. This is my purpose: to live for your glory. Lord, I give you praise. You died for me, I will live for you. I would give my life for this.

The New Testament is also homophobic so I'm not sure how useful this is as a defence of gays.

[Old Europe]

The punishments mentioned in the Bible no longer apply.

Heresy! You know the punishment for that, don't you?

[Grumps]

I didn't know jmfcst was a state lawmaker.

With all due, Scott, this is the kind of stuff that should be moderated here.....if jmf responds his pee pee will be whacked with 10 death points.....

[NY Jew]

Kudos for consistency in theocratic ambitions. I look forward to his further statements condemning cotton-poly blends, the consumption of shellfish, and the uncleanliness of menstration and masturbation.

cotton-poly blends?  if your going to quote the bible get it right there is nothing wrong with this and the bible never mentions this.

[Vasall des Midas]

He quoted that, but I don't see where he actually said "I know I'm in the minority here and things won't go according to my whims, but if they did this is what policy in the US should be like". I don't see him actually - even theoretically - supporting the death penalty for practicing gays.

So. Lame. Not a Salafist.

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

The punishments mentioned in the Bible no longer apply.

I'd go further and say: The Bible does no longer apply.

So we shouldn't love each other anymore?

What has the Bible to do with that ? People loved each other too before the Bible was written. People killed each other off by significant numbers because of what the bible said. So, the bible is a potentially dangerous literature to me. Therefore you should treat the Bible just as an ancient book no different to any other book and don't focus your life and political leanings on it - because you could turn into a crazy that acts on what is written into an old book.

Matthew 22:36-40. Love is the greatest commandment, and you are saying love is invalid.

[memphis]

Kudos for consistency in theocratic ambitions. I look forward to his further statements condemning cotton-poly blends, the consumption of shellfish, and the uncleanliness of menstration and masturbation.

cotton-poly blends?  if your going to quote the bible get it right there is nothing wrong with this and the bible never mentions this.


(just for the record I know what your trying to say and are to ignorant to say)

Leviticus 19:19
Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

[The Mikado]

Kudos for consistency in theocratic ambitions. I look forward to his further statements condemning cotton-poly blends, the consumption of shellfish, and the uncleanliness of menstration and masturbation.

cotton-poly blends?  if your going to quote the bible get it right there is nothing wrong with this and the bible never mentions this.


(just for the record I know what your trying to say and are to ignorant to say)

Leviticus 19:19
Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

The Talmud makes it pretty clear that the verse only means wool-linen blends, which is, again, one of the reasons why it's so silly when people take random passages out of the Law of Moses and quote them directly as meaning something.  (That includes this guy in the OP, of course). 

[BaldEagle1991]

What about the part in the Bible where he says "he who is without sin can cast the first stone"? I wonder whatever happened to that rule?

[True Federalist]

Kudos for consistency in theocratic ambitions. I look forward to his further statements condemning cotton-poly blends, the consumption of shellfish, and the uncleanliness of menstration and masturbation.

cotton-poly blends?  if your going to quote the bible get it right there is nothing wrong with this and the bible never mentions this.


(just for the record I know what your trying to say and are to ignorant to say)

Leviticus 19:19
Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

The Talmud makes it pretty clear that the verse only means wool-linen blends, which is, again, one of the reasons why it's so silly when people take random passages out of the Law of Moses and quote them directly as meaning something.  (That includes this guy in the OP, of course). 

Thing is, at the time Leviticus was written, those were apparently the only two types of fiber known to Israel, so appealing to the Talmud in contravention of the plain meaning of the words isn't particularly convincing one way or the other, since you can come up with logical arguments in support of either position.

[NY Jew]

Kudos for consistency in theocratic ambitions. I look forward to his further statements condemning cotton-poly blends, the consumption of shellfish, and the uncleanliness of menstration and masturbation.

cotton-poly blends?  if your going to quote the bible get it right there is nothing wrong with this and the bible never mentions this.


(just for the record I know what your trying to say and are to ignorant to say)

Leviticus 19:19
Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

The Talmud makes it pretty clear that the verse only means wool-linen blends, which is, again, one of the reasons why it's so silly when people take random passages out of the Law of Moses and quote them directly as meaning something.  (That includes this guy in the OP, of course). 

Thing is, at the time Leviticus was written, those were apparently the only two types of fiber known to Israel, so appealing to the Talmud in contravention of the plain meaning of the words isn't particularly convincing one way or the other, since you can come up with logical arguments in support of either position.

it's clearly based on the verse which is in Deuteronomy 22-11

[Emperor SJoyce]

Writing on his Facebook page, Gipson said that eating shellfish is a "sin", citing Leviticus 11:9-12:

"Been a lot of press on Obama's opinion on 'shrimp consumption.'

The only opinion that counts is God's: see Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10. Anyway you slice it, it is sin. Not to mention horrific social policy.
Leviticus 11:9-12 says, "These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in theaters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

In response to a follower's comments, Gipson specifically named Long John Silver's, Red Lobster, and Popeye's as restaurants that were weakening American culture and society.

Gipson is not backing down on his comments, and said, “To be clear, I want the world to know that I do not, cannot, and will not apologize for the inspired truth of God’s Word. It is one thing that will never ‘change’.”

Research shows children who grow up in households with gay parents have normal self-esteem. Also, churches, governments, and individuals telling children and adults they are unnatural is what’s harmful to children. Love is a simple concept for children to grasp; bigotry and hate are what confuse and harm children (and adults).

Research shows children who grow up in households with shellfish-eating parents have normal self-esteem. Also, churches, governments, and individuals telling children and adults that what they eat is unnatural is what’s harmful to children. Love is a simple concept for children to grasp; bigotry and hate towards their favorite food items are what confuse and harm children (and adults).


Applying his comments towards basically any other part of Leviticus shows how absolutely insane it is.

[memphis]

Kudos for consistency in theocratic ambitions. I look forward to his further statements condemning cotton-poly blends, the consumption of shellfish, and the uncleanliness of menstration and masturbation.

cotton-poly blends?  if your going to quote the bible get it right there is nothing wrong with this and the bible never mentions this.


(just for the record I know what your trying to say and are to ignorant to say)

Leviticus 19:19
Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

The Talmud makes it pretty clear that the verse only means wool-linen blends, which is, again, one of the reasons why it's so silly when people take random passages out of the Law of Moses and quote them directly as meaning something.  (That includes this guy in the OP, of course). 

I'm sure the MS lawmaker in question accepts the validity of the Talmud

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So I take that you are in silent agreement jmfcst?

the sounds of silence which have emanated from the jmfcst are the result of his failure to feel the need to respond to every fool.  But, in your case…he’ll make an exception.

1)   the jmfcst has NOT been silent on this issue, rather he has expounded upon it 1000 times.  The very fact you’re asking him to spell it out again is a sign that you just haven’t been paying attention.

2)   the new covenant superseded the old (Law of Moses), as the Law of Moses and the rest of the OT prophesied, thus the NT church is not governed by the Law of Moses

3)   the requirement for stoning in the Law of Moses was a foreshadowing of the coming Judgment, when God will destroy the unrighteous.

4)   Although the OT contained foreshadowing, the new covenant does not contain foreshadowing regulations, rather the new covenant is about the reality of the present age of grace.

5)   The regulation against weaving two different kinds of material in the same clothe was simply to serve as a lesson for the righteous not to intertwine themselves with non-believers (e.g. do not be unequally yoked…do not plant to different kinds of seeds in the same field…you must differentiate the clean from the unclean, etc, etc, etc…)

But, since you habitually and purposely forget the above and jump on ignorant statements from ignorant pastors in order to comfort your own self-deception, at least remember this lesson: never invite the jmfcst into a thread when you’re not playing with a full deck, for he will expose all your foolishness and correctly divide the word of truth.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

2)   the new covenant superseded the old (Law of Moses), as the Law of Moses and the rest of the OT prophesied, thus the NT church is not governed by the Law of Moses

"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."  -Luke 16:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments  and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19

"For the law was given through Moses;  grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:17

"Has not Moses given you the law?  Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?” John 7:19

" All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16

[True Federalist]

Kudos for consistency in theocratic ambitions. I look forward to his further statements condemning cotton-poly blends, the consumption of shellfish, and the uncleanliness of menstration and masturbation.

cotton-poly blends?  if your going to quote the bible get it right there is nothing wrong with this and the bible never mentions this.


(just for the record I know what your trying to say and are to ignorant to say)

Leviticus 19:19
Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

The Talmud makes it pretty clear that the verse only means wool-linen blends, which is, again, one of the reasons why it's so silly when people take random passages out of the Law of Moses and quote them directly as meaning something.  (That includes this guy in the OP, of course). 

Thing is, at the time Leviticus was written, those were apparently the only two types of fiber known to Israel, so appealing to the Talmud in contravention of the plain meaning of the words isn't particularly convincing one way or the other, since you can come up with logical arguments in support of either position.

it's clearly based on the verse which is in Deuteronomy 22-11

To claim that Leviticus 19:19 is based on Deuteronomy 22:11 is ludicrous.  The structure of Deuteronomy is that of a recapitulation of the law by Moses before Israel goes into the promised land.  As I pointed out, wool and linen were likely the only two types of fiber known to Moses, so his choosing to recapitulate the command of Leviticus 19:19 in terms of those two doesn't prove anything.  The root command is to not mix two kinds of fibers.  One can speculate how narrowly kind is to be defined. For example, are cotton and linen two separate kinds or part of the common kind of plant fiber?  If cotton and linen are different kinds is because they come from different plants or because one is a seed fiber and the other is a bast fiber, so that for example linen and hemp should be considered the same kind as they are both bast fibers?

That said, no matter what the exact scope of division into kinds was intended to be, the primary purpose of the rule appears to be much as the jmfcst just stated, an object lesson in the desirability of maintaining purity.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

2)   the new covenant superseded the old (Law of Moses), as the Law of Moses and the rest of the OT prophesied, thus the NT church is not governed by the Law of Moses

"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."  -Luke 16:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments  and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19

"For the law was given through Moses;  grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:17

"Has not Moses given you the law?  Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?” John 7:19

" All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16

I never stated the Law of Moses wasn't going to be fulfilled simply because it has been superseded, for the Law of Moses is a shadow of things there were (and are) to come.

And, if you would just take a moment to continue reading the verses that immediately follow Mat 5:17-19, you find “these commandments” to be a reference to the commands Jesus goes on to give, which he gave IN CONTRAST to the Law of Moses.

Mat 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment…27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart…31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery…38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.

Hopefully, you:
1) recognize all those were quotes from the Law of Moses, and
2) understand the conjunction “but” is a CONTRASTING conjunction.

But /bət/
Conjunction:   Used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned.

If you need any more help with scripture, or the English language for that matter, just let me know.  After all, I am a born again Christian from Texas.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ok, I just read the OP and I couldn't find where he advocated putting them to death, rather it appears he simply cited the Law of Moses, along with the NT, in order to show the bible was against such behavior in both the OT and NT.

There are MANY passages in the NT that refer to the executions of sinful people in the OT.  Example:  

Heb 10:28 "Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.  29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?"

But that is NOT saying OT executions of the sinful are carried into the NT and are to be preformed by the church, rather those executions are brought up as a reminder of the coming Judgment and therefore serve as a warning for us.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Did your church have any ideas about how to 'cure' or 'save' or at least quarantine a Gay, jmfcst?  Perhaps you saved the Dinner Doodle?

they're saved by the same method anyone else is saved - by the God given grace of receiving a new nature through faith in Jesus Christ.

[Joe Republic]

5)   The regulation against weaving two different kinds of material in the same clothe was simply to serve as a lesson for the righteous not to intertwine themselves with non-believers (e.g. do not be unequally yoked…do not plant to different kinds of seeds in the same field…you must differentiate the clean from the unclean, etc, etc, etc…)

So some passages of the Bible - which look a hell of a lot like strict orders - are simply metaphors, but the stuff about humankind descending from two people who let a talking snake fool them, and the creation of races and languages following the Tower of Babel, and the story of Noah's Ark are literally all true and happened exactly as described.  Got it.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

2)   the new covenant superseded the old (Law of Moses), as the Law of Moses and the rest of the OT prophesied, thus the NT church is not governed by the Law of Moses

"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."  -Luke 16:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments  and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19

"For the law was given through Moses;  grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:17

"Has not Moses given you the law?  Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?” John 7:19

" All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16

I never stated the Law of Moses wasn't going to be fulfilled simply because it has been superseded, for the Law of Moses is a shadow of things there were (and are) to come.

And, if you would just take a moment to continue reading the verses that immediately follow Mat 5:17-19, you find “these commandments” to be a reference to the commands Jesus goes on to give, which he gave IN CONTRAST to the Law of Moses.

Mat 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment…27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart…31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery…38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.

Hopefully, you:
1) recognize all those were quotes from the Law of Moses, and
2) understand the conjunction “but” is a CONTRASTING conjunction.

But /bət/
Conjunction:   Used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned.

If you need any more help with scripture, or the English language for that matter, just let me know.  After all, I am a born again Christian from Texas.

I make no claim to be a expert in scripture, but this seems quite obvious. In Matthew 5, Jesus says that the Law cannot be abolished, and then goes on to give specific examples where changes (NOT abolitions) have been made. He gave no such clarification for the Law stated in Leviticus 20:13. So, unless there is a specific NT passage amending it, Leviticus 20:13 stands as the Law of God.

[bgwah]

So I take that you are in silent agreement jmfcst?

the sounds of silence which have emanated from the jmfcst are the result of his failure to feel the need to respond to every fool.  But, in your case…he’ll make an exception.

1)   the jmfcst has NOT been silent on this issue, rather he has expounded upon it 1000 times.  The very fact you’re asking him to spell it out again is a sign that you just haven’t been paying attention.

2)   the new covenant superseded the old (Law of Moses), as the Law of Moses and the rest of the OT prophesied, thus the NT church is not governed by the Law of Moses

3)   the requirement for stoning in the Law of Moses was a foreshadowing of the coming Judgment, when God will destroy the unrighteous.

4)   Although the OT contained foreshadowing, the new covenant does not contain foreshadowing regulations, rather the new covenant is about the reality of the present age of grace.

5)   The regulation against weaving two different kinds of material in the same clothe was simply to serve as a lesson for the righteous not to intertwine themselves with non-believers (e.g. do not be unequally yoked…do not plant to different kinds of seeds in the same field…you must differentiate the clean from the unclean, etc, etc, etc…)

But, since you habitually and purposely forget the above and jump on ignorant statements from ignorant pastors in order to comfort your own self-deception, at least remember this lesson: never invite the jmfcst into a thread when you’re not playing with a full deck, for he will expose all your foolishness and correctly divide the word of truth.

do you think you could close the door next time you start jerking off in front of the mirror?

[Vasall des Midas]

5)   The regulation against weaving two different kinds of material in the same clothe was simply to serve as a lesson for the righteous not to intertwine themselves with non-believers (e.g. do not be unequally yoked…do not plant to different kinds of seeds in the same field…you must differentiate the clean from the unclean, etc, etc, etc…)

So some passages of the Bible - which look a hell of a lot like strict orders - are simply metaphors

That is Christian theology. That always has been Christian theology. That (and the reasoning behind it) has been Christian theology for 1800 years. Get over it.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

5)   The regulation against weaving two different kinds of material in the same clothe was simply to serve as a lesson for the righteous not to intertwine themselves with non-believers (e.g. do not be unequally yoked…do not plant to different kinds of seeds in the same field…you must differentiate the clean from the unclean, etc, etc, etc…)

So some passages of the Bible - which look a hell of a lot like strict orders - are simply metaphors, but the stuff about humankind descending from two people who let a talking snake fool them, and the creation of races and languages following the Tower of Babel, and the story of Noah's Ark are literally all true and happened exactly as described.  Got it.

Psst... that stuff happened in the Old Testament, so apparently it isn't relevant anymore.