Talk Elections

JACKSON, Miss. — A Mississippi state lawmaker, commenting on the announcement by President Barack Obama affirming support for same-sex marriage, invoked an Old Testament Bible passage on his Facebook page, calling for gay men to be “put to death.”

GOP State Rep. Andy Gipson, a Southern Baptist Minister and business attorney, is Republican state Representative from Braxton, Miss.

()

On May 10, writing on his Facebook page, Gibson said that homosexuality is a “sin,” citing Leviticus 20:13:

“Been a lot of press on Obama’s opinion on ‘homosexual marriage.’

“The only opinion that counts is God’s: see Romans 1:26-28 and Leviticus 20:13. Anyway you slice it, it is sin. Not to mention horrific social policy.

Leviticus 20:13 reads, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

In response to a follower, Gipson later wrote that same-sex relationships are “unnatural” and suggested they will inherently “result in disease”:

Sorry I’ve been busy and not had a chance to reply. David, in addition to the basic principal that it is morally wrong, here are three social reasons it’s horrific social policy:

1) Unnatural behavior which results in disease, not the least of which is its high association with the development and spread of HIV/AIDS;

2) Confusing behavior which is harmful to children who have a deep need to understand the proper role of men and women in society and the important differences between men and women, and fathers and mothers; and

3) Undermines the longstanding definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, a definition which has been key to all aspects of social order and prosperity. Anytime that definition is weakened our culture is also weakened. And yes, that is also true for other conduct which weakens marriage’s importance in society.

A screen capture of the original posts:

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’.”

Gibson’s comments (screenshot above) however, have been since been removed from his Facebook profile.

Knol Aust, Chairman of Unity Mississippi, criticized Gipson, writing on his organization’s website that it was not Gipson’s place to impose his religious beliefs on his constituents.

“Mr. Gipson is wrong when he states the only opinion that counts is his god’s. As a representative of Mississippi, the only opinions he should be concerned with are those of his constituents. While his particular god may play an important role in his life, it is not his job to impose his beliefs and faith upon the people he represents,” Aust said.

Aust then countered Gipson’s arguments, writing:

Being gay does not equal disease just like being straight does not equal disease-free. A heterosexual person with HIV or terminal cancer can still get a marriage license, but a loving gay couple of 20+ years cannot.

To argue that disease is a legitimate reason to deny marriage to loving same-sex couples is absurd. Humans spread disease not sexual orientation.

[...]

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).

[...]

Mr. Gipson needs to realize he represents all of his constituents. He should not cherry-pick which constituents he wants to work for. He should also realize his positions are neither popular nor Republican. LGBT individuals, couples, and families help pay Gipson’s salary. It’s important that he remember that.

While polling shows that nation’s approval of same-sex marriage has trended slightly above 50 percent in a recent poll, a November 2011 poll found that only 13 percent of Mississippi voters thought it should be legal, while 78 percent said it should remain illegal.

Even among Democrats, only 19 percent expressed support.

http://sdgln.com/news/2012/05/21/mississippi-lawmaker-cites-bible-calling-gays-be-put-death

...

::)

God bless America!

This is what a 69% McCain district produces.

He is angling to be Romney's VP.

We've found the 2016 Constitution Party nominee.

Does Mississippi exist solely for the purpose of making the rest of the deep South look good?

Oh, and: Clearly, the Democrats could make some serious inroads into the Mississippi white electorate today. Kinda like the West Virginia Democrats. WHY DOESN'T OBAMA COURT THEM?!

I just knew that a thread in US General Discussion whose title begins with the words "Mississippi lawmaker" was destined to be a fount of reason and justice. Call it instinct.

I don't see jmfcst in this thread.

I don't even know how to respond. Come at me?

Yes, the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy has these little bumps in the road. It also seems quite comfortable with slavery, but I digress.

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.

Let's not forget to put people to death for breaking the Sabbath  (once we figure out if it Saturday or Sunday that is).

Seriously?  Why would you believe Democrats could make inroads with this sort of white?  Personally I doubt it.

I guess my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough. :P

Mississippi - Where morbid obesity is genetic, but homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

I didn't know jmfcst was a state lawmaker.

No, jmfcst isn't into executing whole classes of folks whom he finds execrable  so far as I know. You perhaps are mixing him up with a certain other poster. :P

There are so many homophobic comments made on this board every week, it could be one of many people.

The punishments mentioned in the Bible no longer apply.

It looks like Mississippi is trying to edge out Arizona and Tennessee for Craziest State of the Union 2012. Looks like it's going to be a competitive year.

Mississippi makes conservative Utah look good. As far as I know, no modern Utah GOPer has said something like this.

Anyway, insert generic joke about shellfish and polyester here.

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

So I take that you are in silent agreement jmfcst?

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.

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

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

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.....

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.

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. :(

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

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). 

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?

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

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.

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

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.

"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

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Not entirely irrelevant, but not God's command to the entire world according to the terms of the New Testament/Covenant/whatever translation you like as interpreted by the entirety of Christianity since... well.. since it has been reasonably describable as Christianity. That's only God's literal command to the Jews before the whole Jesus business.
I mean, if you don't know that what are you even doing in this thread? Might as well discuss Islam with a Westerner. :P

Ah yes, in my Bible as literature book that I am reading, allegory and metaphors were Greek concepts, and when the Hebrew Bible was translated from Hebrew into Greek in Alexandria by the Hellenized Jews there, they took the opportunity to edit the Old Testament yet again, dumping a bunch of that stuff into it, I guess because taking it all literally as actually having literally happened, was just too way out there. I have not got that far yet, but I assume when the assorted and sundry Christians wrote what made the cut into the New Testament, they did the same thing - they were Hellenized too.

Off-side ~~ use of jargon to dodge the question..

Again, I make no great claim as to expertise when it comes to scripture, but my comment to Joe was meant to be sarcastic.

learn to read.  I never said those commands were simply metaphors.  They were commands to be strictly followed by those who lived under that covenant, but they also serve as foreshadowings....they are BOTH literal and figurative.

Just as Adam-Eve, Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel...are BOTH literal and figurative.

Is it really any surprise that this the same state Fred Phelps hails as his birthplace?

So, you’re saying the Septuagint (LXX) didn’t represent its Hebrew source?!   Then I have some points for you to chew on:

1)   That’s pure conjecture, without any supporting evidence.

2)   To claim that the Jews would accept a new Greek translation which varied markedly from known Hebrew sources is preposterous.

3)   Jewish historical sources (e.g. Josephus) say the LXX was viewed by Jews as having been translated accurately.

4)   The Deal Sea Scrolls, much of which is in Hebrew, including palaeo-Hebrew script (which is FAR older than the timeframe of the start of Greek rule over the Jews), is in close alignment with the LXX…showing that the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX have a common Hebrew source.  Which means the physical evidence contradicts the theory of the book you’re reading, which I am sure was written by acclaimed “scholars”.

Out of curiosity, what would those be?

How does the government currently do this?

Allegory and metaphors existed in Hebrew literature, and were understood as such. The Greeks just introduced the literary theory behind them and took the interpretation to a whole new level.  I don't know of the OT being edited to include allegory and metaphor - the only Hellenized portions of the OT were some of the wisdom books of the Apocrypha that were influenced by Stoicism. They use a lot of metaphor but no more than the Hebrew wisdom literature did.  Philo of Alexandria more than anyone was responsible for a highly allegorical method of interpretation in his commentaries.  Paul seems to have used it a little, and the early church fathers such as Origen used it a lot.

Atheist?

Congratulations, you've just won my personal award for Fastest on Ignore! Your prize is me not reading any of your posts ever again.

Indeed, it's our good friend Athiest2006; he'll be banned yet again as soon as Nym is online.

Man, he's so predictable. Painfully predictable.