Matt Shepard v Jesse Dirkhising

SimplyBee made no such implication that we should stop "hating the sin". I think the point was that, given the phrase, "Love the sinner, hate the sin", we Christians are often very quick to do the latter and reluctant to do the former. I know I've been guilty of that myself a bit recently, and I've been praying for God to show me the wisdom to apply both parts of this message equally. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry for the late response; I've been working 12-14 hour days, and really missing my family lately.

Brett, I humbly submit that you are correct, that we all too often focus on "hate the sinner"--but the other side of that coin holds true as well. All too often, we focus on "love the sinner" and disregard the second half. It is not loving anyone to tell them God loves them but not tell them they're doing something God doesn't like; in fact, it's encouraging them to continue in that sin. When you say you've praying for the wisdom to apply both parts equally, I agree wholeheartedly; we should be saying "God loves you, but He hates what you're doing."

That was the point of my original question for SimplyBee, who, unfortunately, seems to have been too upset about this particular thread to come back.

 

There is a girl that lives about two houses down from me who is 16 years old. Now when I was 16 girls were sort of starting to develop the features that define them as women but in most cases they were nothing that would tempt "normal men" as you define them. But things are a little different now that our diets are high in saturated fats and a whole generation of females grew up washing their hair with shampoos and applying body and facial cremes both of which contain hormones that tend to enhance the development process. To make it plain and understandable for you - she's got the body of a Playboy model, at 16. I know this because she walks between my condo and my neighbors to reach the public pool. When I walk around the mall regularly I see girls as young as 14 sporting a 36D cup size and hips that you used to find only on women in their 20's. And before you go accusing me of being a gawker and a pedophile just think about how hard it is to conceal a bust like that, and with hip-hugger jeans and such - well you should get the point. If not then I suggest turning of the Andy Griffith episodes and getting out of the house a little more often to observe whats going on around you. Now as you stated their age is a definite detractor to any any potential temptation and there is no way that I would ever seek out such venues. But put her and I in a closed situation where I am an authority figure and her being an impressionable, young, immature female with powerful emotional issues that she's inexperienced in dealing with - topping it off with the body of a Playboy centerfold......well, you've got a potentially explosive situation. Especially if I've got issues (which I don't, but nevertheless)such as recently divorced or if I've been dry in terms of female companinship for a while. Greater men than you and I have fallen in such situations. Thats why I or any other male should not be placed in a situation with her. We potentially could be attracted to her as we are heterosexuals. THe same situation does not apply to young men as I am not a homosexual and there would be nothing wrong with me being in a leadership role involving young men. In laymans terms, I don't have even a remote desire to have sex with any man so the temptation is not there and never will be. Not so in the former example.

Man I'm totally lost on what you're trying to refer to here.

I'm sorry that you obviously aren't adept enough to draw conclusions from self evident results. I presented my case with evidence for my assumptions...you?

Did you read the words sexual desire toward another of the same sex? Your defensive position is at this point is almost laughable if it wasn't so sad. Let me make it easy for you.

A homosexual is, by definition, someone who has a sexual desire toward someone of the same sex. A pedohile is someone who has a desire for sexual relations with or abuse of a minor. Now if a pedophile abuses someone of the opposite sex, they fit the definition of a pedophile but not a homosexual. But if they abuse a person of the same sex, then that sexual abuse fits both the definition of pedophile and homosexual. You didn't see the words "sex with a minor" because the definition of homosexuality is not related or dependent on the age of a person just opon the prediposition or acts committed with a person of the same sex regardless of age or any other factor.

You still haven't thouroughly addressed observation that more male children are abused by male abusers. Why are they going after male children? The fact that they disriminate in this aspect does present the possibility that the behaviors could be motivated by homosexual leanings. This can also be supported by the earlier observation I made that homosexual behavior is fundamentally different in males and females respectively.

Post-it if you are openly carrying the flag for acceptence of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle to be recognized by the church then you are Anti-Christ. If you are of the opinion that the Church should "love" the individuals by allowing them to conduct their lifestyles openly in the church, setting a very bad example for young people and anyone else for that matter then yes you are Anti-Christ. Christ himself said ... Be ye not of this world Ask yourself why is the world so adhemant about the bombardment of legislation that seeks to force the acceptence of this lifestyle? A good measure for any Christian these days could be that of looking at what Hollywood and the media is supporting and stand for exactly the opposite.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding your position post-it. You are lumping the sin of homosexuality in with other sins such as lying, cheating, etc... which is a valid operation considering I agree with you in that respect. But your apparent defense of homosexuals, and that is how it is coming off through your posts, presents a confusing dichotomy. Are you a Christian or aren't you? If your stance is that homosexuality is in fact a sin and is no worse than any other sin then you will fall into one of two schools of thought:

1. All sin is equally weighted and should be dealt with the same punishment and overt denunciation of the behavior or circumstances, or in other words zero tolerance .

2. Since all sin is weighted the same and we let some sins slide then we might as well just have an apathetic attitude about all of them and practice universal tolerance seeing how we all sin and such.

I believe that the traditional theology as well as much of the Word of God supports the former.

So are you saying that we as Christians should mimic society's legal viewpoints in establishing our doctrinal dictates? If so then there should be no contention over the issue of "seperation of Church and state" as Chruches would just fall in line, rank and file, behind every legal whim that is written into law. Daniel would have prayed to Nebuchadnezzer and never been sent to the lions' den, and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abedneggo would have just bowed to the great statue and avoided the fiery furnace altogether.
We as a church were given a mandate by Christ himself to go forth into the world and proclaim the gospel and he also warned that not all people would accept what we have to say and that many of us would be persecuted and even killed because of our unwavering beliefs. Holding to the right beliefs does not mean that they will always be the popular ones. The problem with todays churches is that many have adopted an "Oprah" philosophy of not offending anyone or stepping on any toes and while this might save you some ridicule in the public arena, it does nothing to procliam to sinners that there is indeed a right way to live as opposed to a wrong way. While Christ preached love and mercy, he also said that he did not come to bring peace to the orld but a sword. In the end God will divide the faithful from the unfaithful and one group will live in everlasting glory with him and the other will burn in hell. I do not wish to print my whole theory on homosexuality as it would take up a tremendous amount of forum space. In summation I believe that the prevalence of homosexuality with respect to biblical sources, while being a sin, was more of an example of the level of depravity that the societies in which it flourished had sank. I believe that Paul referred to the behavior as God "giving them over to vile affections". Or that their behavior was representative of a state of sinfullness that had progressed like a cancer to a point where perhaps the God withheld his mercy and turned them over to a lifestyle wrought with emminent, accelerated destruction.

 

To God - yeah, they are all the same. In our eyes, they are different, but not in God's. </font>[/QUOTE]i think you are over stepping your bounds here, you seem to know exactly the depth of dishonor for each and every sin degree in the eyes of God.

 

also concerning shepard, this young sodomite was possibly given mercy even though an evil act of murder took him, in respect to future judgment and added wrath for his on going homosexuality would of added much more wrath as time went on. so in short it was mercy in a spiritual sense that he didn't live a long life. i know this is going to sound mean but in terms of Gods wrath it may be that added wrath was something shepard did not need more of.

 

Not at all! Sorry about that, I have barely had enough time to read the thread, much less formulate a thoughtful response. I'm a college student and a part time programmer/analyst; neither of which leaves me a lot of time. I'll hopefully catch up on questions this weekend. God bless! -b

 

No, I'm stepping square within the bounds of Scripture. I notice you haven't posted Scripture to argue the point that sin is, indeed, sin.

 

That's just silly. Who is to say that he would not have accepted Jesus Christ 5 years later? If only someone would have reached out to the guy instead of killed him, his place in eternity may be different.

To take it to the sublime, can you really see him writhing in Hell, saying, "Wow! Thanks for not letting me live longer God! I can only imagine how bad it would be if I had lived a few years longer!" Seriously...

 

Do you actually believe that you will get any homosexual to hear the Gospel message while using that offensive language? Scripture teaches us to "speak the truth in love." It doesn't say to humiliate the sinner first and then give him the Gospel. It would do us well to remember from whence we came....

 

Love always speaks the truth.

1 Cor 13:6
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
(KJV)

Let me ask you a question. If we were to use the words "a loving person who chooses an alternate lifestyle" so that we would be careful not to offend anyone, would that meet with your approval?

You fail to see that the gospel is confrontive by nature. Regardless of what "sin" a person is in love with, the gospel demands that they turn away from it and turn to Jesus. In order for a sodomite to turn away, or repent, from this sin they must realize that their lifestyle is wrong in God's eyes.

In today's society we are being told that sodomy is not wrong. There are even places, called churches, that preach that homosexuality is not a sin. The person who is living this lifestyle must see this perversion for what it is, sin against a holy God.

 

I'm not throwing stones at you Scott but this statement projects some frustration. Mathew's killers were not fanatical Christians consumed with "homophobic" hatred. They were immoral miscreants in their own respect and had a general hatred for everybody. There is one person, in my eyes, mainly responsible for Mathew's death and that is himself. He led a reckless lifestyle and in the end he got caught. Sure all sin is equal in Gods eyes but in this life certain sinful actions can have more immediate and catostrophic consequences than others. If Mathew would have conducted his life in a more responsible manner maybe he could have lived long enough for someone to reach out and wittness to him and yes, maybe he could have accepted Christ into his heart. That is the real tragedy as I see it.

 

So the moral of this story is that it is his own fault that he is dead right now. Unbelievable. It wasn't his sin that got him killed - it was the sin of the murderers. You can't equate the actions of the killers with an instance such as when God sent the bears to kill the youth of Elisha's time. The murderers are the ones to blame for Shepard's death, and no one else.

 

James 1:15
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
(KJV)

 

Different descriptions of shepard's murderers

"They were immoral miscreants in their own respect and had a general hatred for everybody."
"Mathew's murderers were known thugs and had previous criminal records."

Interesting contrast with Bob's description.

"and made an obscene pass at a clean-cut young man whom Shepard thought was gay."

 

Scott has said...

It should be pointed out that if Matthew Shephard had not "hit" on his soon to be killer, he might still be alive today. So to say that no one else is to blame for his murder is, in my opinion, wrong. His action led to a reaction, thus both "parties" are to blame.

God Bless

Adam

 

Going back to Dr. Bob's original posting, in which he asked...

I'll admit that I hadn't heard about what happened to Jesse Dirkhising. Either it didn't make either of the Chicago newspapers (which both, IMO, tend to be liberal, especially the Tribune), or I didn't get the paper that day.

I did an online search of both newspapers, and came across only 1 article, in the Trib. Since I wasn't about to pay for the whole article (yes, the Trib makes you pay for online articles ), all I could get for free was the first paragraph (from March 31, 2001), which states... "Joshua Macabe Brown, 23, was found guilty last week in the 1999 death of Jesse Dirkhising at the apartment Brown shared with his lover, Davis Don Carpenter, 39." (emphasis added by me)

That was it. Nothing from 1999 about the death of Jesse; nothing about the trial; nothing but the sentence his murderer received, and then that was reported a week later.

I guess the death of Jesse Dirkhising just wasn't very newsworthy.

What were Dr. Bob's final words on his original post?

I agree.

God Bless

Adam

 

I do believe that the Bible tells The wages of sin is death Scott. What is so unbelievable about that? If I go out and have unprotected sex with a new woman every other night eventually, I will contract a veneral disease (herpes, AIDS, etc...) due to the fact that the diseases are becoming so prevalent. So would it be the fault of the person carrying the disease or my fault for being so reckless in my pursuits? Like it or not our choices in this life have consequences. And some of those consequences can be pretty harsh. For instance if you like to base jump, you must accept the possibility that your parachite could malfunction and if that happens you will fall to your death. The malfunctioning of the parachute was instrumental in your demise but ultimately you were the one that made the decision to jump off the cliff or building. It is also true that many people get in a car every day and speed off to their deaths in an accidental crash. But the difference here is that automobiles have a utilitarian function of getting us to our destinations (work, school, store) while no one uses base jumping for those same purposes. Mathew's life style was reckless. Lets just use common reasoning here. Aside from the arguements about homosexuality and fornication etc... what are my chances of meeting a similar demise if I were to try to develop a relationship with one person that I took the time to be friends with and get to know over a period of time as opposed to seeking out any person who was willing and a new person every night at that? The odds are exponetially higher that I could meet an unstable person who could cause me harm if I sleep around like Mathew did. Also indisriminately seeking sex in the homosexual population is suicide as the frequency of HIV positive homosexual males is still higher than any other group.
Scott, I'm having a hard time justifying your defense of Mathew's actions. I am not saying that Mathew deserved to die, as all of us under the penalty of living in a sinful world are worthy of. I am simply saying that Mathew's sinful lifestyle and the resulting poor choices that he made are mostly responsible for his death. Lots of people who have committed no sin connected to the act are murdered every year but God tells us that it rains on the just and the unjust. Bringing back my previous example, a person who gets into a car and drives to the sore and dies in an accident is a victim of a random incident of which they had little control. A person who dives off a cliff and falls to their death due to the faulty parachute had an active role in the consequences of their actions. How moreso if the resulting actions are based on sinful choices?

 

Let me clarify. We are all sinners and so we all will experience death.

And that would be a specific cause and effect. You sleep with someone with a disease, you can get a disease.

There is a specific action that leads to a specific reaction.

That's like saying that if I take a walk in the park at 3:00 p.m. and I get shot by a crazy guy who happens to be there at the same time, then it must have been my fault. I shouldn't have been in the park.

Specific action leads to specific reaction. In this case, the person who packed the parachute or the parachute maker may the one who is the cause of the death. That is a risk that is small, but one that the jumper is aware of.

A risk that the jumper is aware of.

A risk that drivers are aware of.

How is this a difference?

And this is where your argument falls. Hitting on someone hardly ever leads to the reaction that has happened. In fact, I'm not aware of any other story in which a person hits on another person, who kills him.

That is irrelevant and you know it.

I am not defending Matthew' actions. I am saying that anyone here who believes that he had it coming or that he was in part responsible for the actions of those who murdered are plain wrong. Do not try to take the culpability away from those who are guilty of murder.

Mostly responsible? That is completely bizarre. He didn't get murdered because he was gay. He didn't get murdered even because he hit on someone. He got murdered because two men who didn't like that implication tortured Matthew to death. Do not forget that.

And you've illustrated my point here. Who do we blame when a "just" person is murdered? We blame the person who murdered them. Why should this be different when a "sinner" is murdered? Is it because we just don't like them, and deep down, we're kinda glad that there's one fewer sinner around?

If a person jumps off of a cliff and the parachute fails, we blame the parachute. It was the parachute that failed, not the person. We don't say, "Oh, what a tragedy it was. The guy killed himself!", do we? We say, "It's a tragedy that the parachute didn't open" and we investigate why it didn't open. Blaming the victim is, in my opinion, a cowardly act, because it takes the blame squarely off the shoulders of the ones who committed the cowardly act.

I had a guy hit on me one time. Made me extremely uncomfortable. I told him I wasn't like that - that I was straight. Did I kill him? Nope. Several of my friends have been hit on - none of them killed the homosexuals who hit on them. Why is that? Because a normal reaction of a straight man being hit upon by a homosexual isn't to torture and kill them. It's just not.

 

ScottEmerson sez:

"You ARE free to choose. You ARE NOT free to choose the consequences of your choice."

Any way you slice it, actions have consequences, good or bad, now or later.