In the infamous case in Paducah, Kentucky, where a young man shot up a school prayer group, one of the things I remember reading is that, after that same group of kids tormented the boy who ultimately shot them.
Ahem.
I went to high school 12 miles from Heath High School. I was living in west KY at the time of the shooting. I knew kids that were there that day, and I know one that WOULD have been in that group, but she overslept that day. One of the girls that survived (Missy Jenkins) had a hospital room near my grandmother, who had had knee replacement surgery that week so my Mom ended up talking to her family a bit about what happened.
It is common knowledge in western Kentucky that Michael Carneal was FRIENDS with the 3 girls he killed. One of them was an ex romantic interest, but they were still buddies. Any school shooting is shocking but one of the main questions that arose when this happened was “Why did he open fire on his friends?”
He may very well have been teased in school, but the kids he shot weren’t his harassers. He is/was crazy (although a strong argument can be made that he knew exactly what he was doing because there is quite a bit of proof that he planned it for a year – and it is a hardcore fact that it was premeditated at least a few days). Last I heard, he is in very bad shape in a mental facility somewhere and the word is that the kid probably won’t see 30 because he is so deteriorated.
I don’t doubt that many school shootings have been brought on when some kid who has had enough snaps, and so they kill those who have tormented them, but that was not the case in Paducah.
I yield to you on the issue of closeness. I also should have known that not being able to find a reliable cite on-line was a bad sign! :rolleyes:
Bringing this thing full circle, though, I do have a question for you. Do you regard my friend’s then latent homosexuality as being more sinful than the actions of the kids who tormented me? Do you regard whatever it is he does with that partner of his (when I’m on the phone to them, it’s usually cooking and/or playing with the cats) as more sinful than those actions? I’ll also ask you my favourite question: why? (That applies either way.) I am interested in reading your take on things simply because you are different from me and, while understanding those who are different may no longer be a matter of survival, it is a matter of great curiousity.
It really doesn’t matter what I think about it, Seige.
If I were in charge of the whole morality system thing, then I would say the kids who harassed you were definitely “more sinful.”
The Bible says a sin is a sin is a sin, though, and that sorta trumps whatever I personally think about it. All sins are equal in the eyes of God. There’s no one sin that separates you more from God than another.
You reap what you sow, though. Karma is gonna bite those kids in the ass when they, say, have a kid who doesn’t fit the mold at school and gets tormented for it.
FWIW, my New Oxford Annotated Bible substitutes the word “fornication” for “sexual immorality” in Mark 7:21 (which was quoted in the OP).
Also, FWIW, some scholars maintain that 7:20-23 was a Markian addition intended to soften earlier defecation imagery:
Mark 7:15 (on dietary laws and perhaps more generally): “It’s not what goes into a person from the outside that can defile; rather it’s what comes out of a person that defiles.”
and
Mark 7:18-19 “Are you as dim-witted as the rest? Don’t you realize that nothing from outside can defile by going into a person, because it doesn’t get to the heart but passes into the stomach, and comes out in the outhouse?”
Of course, it is the “obvious” first answer one thinks of, if those statistics are correct. And indeed, it seems like the most likely explanation. But if there are indeed brain chemistry differences, which I am not sure that the research has proven, but if there are, that could partially explain the rate as well. Of course, the differences could be caused by the oppresion…
[pedantic mode]
Does it? Like any written work, the Bible is an interpreted document when read by the individual, so what you think about it and its origin affects the way you read it and the particular actions you determine to be sinful.
Sure, your particular view can’t change an absolute metaphysical moral sense (assuming one exists), but your opinion on the matter is what drives you to action, and your action shapes the reality around you…
As for the point in question, I probably wouldn’t rest all responsibility for gay suicides on the shoulders of bigots either, but to some extent they are responsible. Is the salesperson who sells a defective product responsible to the people who were injured by that product? Not completely, and certainly not legally as the manufacturer would be the one liable. But if the product was something obviously dangerous or damaging (like say, the 12,000 Amp Super Flaming Toaster), the salesman would be ethically irresponsible for selling it to unwitting consumers. The consumer, of course, would be poorly advised to buy into something so ludicrous, and it ultimately is his responsibility for plugging the monstrosity in, but without the originator of the idea and its advocates, it is quite possible, perhaps likely that he would not have.
[quote]
I think it’s kind of silly to assume that the kid will be harassed. Nothing has even happened yet and already there’s a lament? It’s almost as if people WANT the kid to be harassed in school so it’ll “prove” how evil conservatives are.
[/quote[
So your’re saying that never happens, but if it did, it would mean conservtives are evil?
Make up your mind. Is it a belief or isn’t it? If you choose to believe homosexuality is immoral because you choose to believe that the Bible is the Word 'o God–with no proof–you are respinsible for those choices as it pertains to harboring prejudicial attitudes toward other individuals.