12 Responses to “Teenager Murdered: Who is to Blame?”

1. Ryan Dube
   August 20th, 2008 @ 10:23 am

   Undoubtably, Brandon, the child that took Larry’s life is to blame. To say that anyone else is to blame is by default, defending Brandon’s actions.

   Brandon took it into his own hands to take another llife. The situation did not warrant him to take Larry’s life. This was a choice, made only by Brandon, there are many factors involved that yes could have prevented this tragedy; but the fact remains.

   I listened to your broadcast and I also read an article from newsweek.com.

   Both Larry and Brandon come from disfunctional family situations. Larry was adopted and Brandon’s parents split due to domestic issues. Larry sure as heck was lashing out and looking for attention. He was destructive and hurt. Kids like attention, and they will seek it out, whether it is positive attention or negative attention. Larry claimed that he was gay, then he started wearing outfits to show off his extremism, then he went on to change his mind by saying that he was bi-sexual, then he started wearing make-up, falsely accused his step-father of assault, the list goes on and on. He needed help, and the assistant principal that befriended him only helped to blur lines and justify his behaviour. But, she is not to blame for Brandon’s actions.

   I agree with Larry’s step-father, the gay activist community should be ashamed for using his deceased loved one as a martyr for their cause….

2. Geaster32
   August 20th, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

   I have to agree with you Ryan. The person that committed the act is the one to blame. I know that we get caught up as a society and we’re quick to assign blame and pseudo-diagnose the reasons. Well it’s simple, we’ve removed YHWH from the situation and replaced Him with medication. We over medicate and over diagnose situations. Why did Cain slaughter Abel? was it because Abel had a better gift, was it because mommy and daddy paid more attention Abel? Well it’s quite simple, Cain made a decision which had repercussions, similarly to Brandon. At all times, Brandon could’ve made another decision. We as society have to seek dialogue as an effective and a primary means of resolution instead of violence. This is achieved through prayer and education. After all, we are pro-life and there is never a justifiable reason to take life, or is this only viable during pregnancy?

3. Ryan Dube
   August 21st, 2008 @ 7:38 am

   Read-reading the article, I see tha tthis topic was properly titled. Larry was a cross-dresser. He claimed to be gay and he claimed to be bi, but he admitted to his best friend that he had not ever even kissed either sex. The reason why I bring up this point is because of the title of the Newsweek article, “Young, Gay, Murdered”

   It seems that even the activists and media want to presume things and spin them in such a way so that his story serves a greater purpose. Why are we as a society so quick to label everything and then even go so far as to line it up with medications.

   It’s almost as if we want to sedate everyone with a hint of a condition so that parents can raise their zombies, er I mean children easier.

   On a side note, this is more directed to Dr. Brown and Geaster32:

   Yesterday I spoke to you (Dr. Brown) about pro-life and specifically and issue concerning brutal rape and a woman’s choice to go thru an abortion or not. And Geaster32, you said “we are pro-life and there is never a justifiable reason to take life” so then why, in the Bible, is killing acceptable?

   For example:

   Why was it ok for David to crack open Goliath’s skull with a sling?
   Why was it ok for the Hebrew’s who fled Egypt to kill the people currently inhabiting the Promised land to take over the land?
   Why is it that Yeshua’s death on the cross is so great (if we were a pro-life people, shouldn’t we take the stance that morally wrong to rejoice?, I know that thru his death and resurrection we are saved, but we are still glorifying a murder from a certain point of view)
   Why was it ok for so many death’s at the time of the great flood? (yes I knw those people had a choice to go into the ark or not, but if we are pro-life, shouldn’t Noah have underminded their decision and forced them onto the boat?)

4. john
   August 21st, 2008 @ 3:29 pm

   Hey Ryan
   Maybe I can offer some thoughts to a few of your questions

   There are two important things needed to understand some of these things.

   1) God is always Righteous.

   For example the instance of the children of Israel driving out all of the other nations .If you read Lev: 18 –24,25 and Deut 9:5 and a few more scriptures we come to understand that the children of Israel were simply carrying out God’s judgment on the sins of the land and the people. The sins of those people had reached its fullness and so God was merely using Israel as a vehicle of judgment and also in the process helping them possess the land.
   David and Goliath also follow the same pattern.I think that pattern applies in general to many of the events in the Old Testament.
   “The wages of sin is death”.
   So in that sense in the Old Testament, Israel (God’s people) was used to carry out God’s judgment on sin.
   In the New Testament however we as (God’s people) believers “Are to bless those who persecute us” and leave the carrying out of judgment in the hands of the Lord.

   Also I do believe that the Old Testament pattern of God brining judgment on nations through kings still works today, although explaining some of these events can grow complicated.

   2) We need to look at things from eternity’s light

   Sometimes when we look at the pain and suffering now and without eternity in the background we can grow critical or bitter. However everything God does is from that perspective for His Children. The word that “All things work together for good “, I can add “eternal good” to the word good.
   That could explain why God’s punishment was so severe on Moses or on some of the Old Testament people.
   In saying that the people in Noah’s time were given a second chance. You can read it in I Peter 3:18 to 20.
   So finally what is my conclusion.
   As long as there is sin commited on the earth there are going to be consequences for them and one of the consequences is death. In the Bible we have a lot of records of such events.
   However we as a New Testament people we should leave the carrying out of judgment to God and sow mercy and Grace, however we can and whenever we can. Which is in this case try and save as many lives as possible knowing that Mercy triumphs over judgment.
   In some other cases like Noah and the other prophets warn the people of the impending disaster.

5. Fearless
   August 21st, 2008 @ 10:04 pm

   In some other cases like Noah and the other prophets warn the people of the impending disaster.

   Right. The classic set-up and payoff inherent in all fiction.

6. Paul
   September 6th, 2008 @ 12:16 pm

   Would you bet your life that it’s fiction?

   You should know that your scoffing puts you on a fast-track to Hell: why don’t you do yourself a favour and seek God’s forgiveness, rather than just having a little sport, “shooting fish in a barrel”, or whatever it is you believe you’re doing here. You might consider yourself fearless now, but Jesus is clear about what awaits those who deny Him and decry His teachings.

   Hear Him and repent.

7. Ryan Dube
   September 6th, 2008 @ 10:52 pm

   Paul,

   Please tell me that is not the approach you take to non-believers… It is that type of mentality that helps place us as believers in Yeshua into a “alarmist” or “fear tactic” viewed culture.

   The better question to pose someone who does not share our core beliefs is: What if I am wrong about my beliefs?

   My answer would be if I am wrong, I can say at that if I live according to my beliefs I was a good father to my children, I have a good husband, I was an asset to my community, I was an upstanding citizen, and looked at my fellow man as my brother…

8. Ewan
   September 7th, 2008 @ 4:53 am

   In defense of Paul, I think his approach is appropriate in certain circumstances. Ryan, your question is similar to that of Pascal’s Wager. I would prefer to challenge those who reject Christianity by asking them to defend the alleged truth of their own worldview. Put the onus on them instead to argue why we should believe their version of reality. Ask most people to explain how evolution or abiogenesis is supposed to have worked and they have no clue.

9. Paul
   September 7th, 2008 @ 6:30 am

   “Paul,

   Please tell me that is not the approach you take to non-believers… “

   Sorry, Ryan… There was a time when I’d've gone along with your approach — but it’s not Scriptural and I’ve found that it doesn’t really work with those who sneer. Just look at Jesus’ approach: He never shied away from talking about Hell — indeed He stuck it up there as something which should scare us into fearing God (you’ll find it passim, but Luke 12:5 springs immediately to mind).

   “It is that type of mentality that helps place us as believers in Yeshua into a “alarmist” or “fear tactic” viewed culture.”

   But a healthy fear should work in us. Scripture’s clear on that. Christ placed love in the prime spot, but He did not do away with Godly fear. If we’re to understand and obey God, then we should possess both — and, depending on the circumstances, one or the other should prevail.

   If someone is humbled, has reached the end of themselves and is sick of their sin, there’s no need to load them up then and there with fears of Hell: the redemptive message of the gospel truly is more precious than gold to them. However, that same message is folly to those who are, in their own conceit, too proud to acknowledge their ultimate dependence on God or the seriousness of their sin. Jesus was not a diplomat. When someone needed to hear the hard stuff, He didn’t hold back.

   “The better question to pose someone who does not share our core beliefs is: What if I am wrong about my beliefs?”

   “My answer would be if I am wrong, I can say at that if I live according to my beliefs I was a good father to my children, I have a good husband, I was an asset to my community, I was an upstanding citizen, and looked at my fellow man as my brother…”

   …But how exactly would that work with old fearless?! He’d claim that he’d do all of that without the need for God! Indeed, he’d claim that his doing it would count more, since he’d be doing it out of a purer motive than to please some deity or to avoid some punishment. …But you are right in as much as he would certainly understand it: it is a paean to pride of self — remember that we Christians are not down here to feel so pleased with our own achievements! It’s for God to determine whether we ran a good race…

10. Ryan Dube
    September 7th, 2008 @ 7:14 am

    I agree that God is to be feared; but first you have to have an understanding of God to truly fear and respect why it is important to feel that way.

    Take for example the overweight man with his jelly donut…

    A thin, physically fit man goes up to him and in detail, tells him that he is hurting his body by comsuming this food, the amount of calories per bite, the love handles and obesity to come. The overweight gentleman looks down at his jelly filled donut and replies back to the man: “You’re right, I should not be eating this stuff, it will only send me to an early grave”

    The two man shake hands and part. As soon as the thin man turns the corner, the overweight man shove’s his donut down his throat and enjoys it; he continues to eat jelly donuts until he dies an early death.

    This is where the term “Bible Thumper” stems from. You can be a right as rain, you can provide profound examples of truth, you can make perfect sense as you speak in simplistic or intellectual terms, but that is not enough to get thru the barrier/defense that people have when they hear someone verbally attacking them. Immediately they close the door. This is why people loathe Jehovah’s Witness people; they know what they are about and do not answer the door because they don’t want to hear about their religon. I on the other hand love to open the door, it is rare that I get visitors that are ready for a biblical debate. Hehe

11. Ryan Dube
    September 7th, 2008 @ 7:46 am

    As far as fearless is concerned, well let’s move away from certering on him, and just look at atheists as a whole. He is not here to defend himself, therefore it would not be in good taste for us to continue talking about him, or thinking for him.

    For those that would say that they can do that all wtihout God, I would then go into where the origin of their moral values come from. I would ask them why they uphold such values if there is no consequence for their actions. You can’t argue God with someone who will not consider the notion of even his existance. You have to find other means, common ground.

    If I say George Washington had false teeth, and he says that there is no proof that such a person ever existed. I provide various texts signed by Mr. Washington, I show him legal documents , painted liknesses; he claims them all forgeries. Any evidence I show him, he dismisses because he does not trust their source. So no matter what, to him I cannot prove that he ever walked this earth because we cannot find a common ground or foundation.

    What I am getting at is that with all of your “fire and Brimstone” rhetoric, it would mean nothing to a person who believes it all to be ancient fairytales…

12. Paul
    September 7th, 2008 @ 11:10 am

    Hi Ryan.

    I liked the example about the man and the jelly donuts! (They would be called “jam doughnuts” over here in Limeyland.) It certainly rings true: indeed I wish someone would inform our stupid government that the mountain of tax they spend on “educating” our increasingly tubby nation might just as well be burnt in an incinerator for all the good it does. Anyway, I digress… The key point is that jelly donut man (surely one of America’s least successful crime-fighting superheroes ) weighs up the pros and cons and thinks a short, fat, happy life is preferable to a long, thin, donut-free one, agreeing wholeheartedly with the health-nut so that the latter clears off and leaves him to stuff his face in peace.

    True though this may be in the world of donut-scoffing fatties, I don’t know that it is a good picture of what you refer to as “Bible Thumper” evangelism. The prospect of finding oneself spending one’s afterlife in a place of eternal misery strikes fear into the hearts of many a sinner. Even those who seem rather cavalier about their earthly lives. I for example, am extremely concerned about where I spend eternity, but I have little time for health-freakery, and would be on the side of jelly donut man (I’m lugging around about a stone and a half — 21lb — in fat which I shouldn’t be, yet I prefer being tubby to munching dandelions and doing physical jerks every morning).

    “You can be a right as rain, you can provide profound examples of truth, you can make perfect sense as you speak in simplistic or intellectual terms, but that is not enough to get thru the barrier/defense that people have when they hear someone verbally attacking them. Immediately they close the door.”

    Not always. …And in a sense, it’s immaterial whether they do or don’t: our job is simply to tell the world what Jesus has told us. And a significant part of that is the price one pays for rejecting Him. Sure, there have been endless bad instances of “Hell-fire preaching”, but that’s no reason to abandon any mention of Hell or the eternal consequences of sin. Again, look to Christ’s example. He made plenty of dire warnings to people (what you term “verbally attacking” them) — even to those ordinary folk who don’t hate God and who think they’re doing all right (e.g. Luke 13:1-5). They needed to know that repentance is absolutely crucial. …And you can bet that plenty of them “immediately closed the door” — but it didn’t stop Him saying what He had to say.

    “As far as fearless is concerned, well let’s move away from certering on him, and just look at atheists as a whole. He is not here to defend himself”

    Where’d he go, then?

    “therefore it would not be in good taste for us to continue talking about him, or thinking for him.”

    As far as “thinking for him” goes, we’ve been given a crystal clear picture of his outlook — I believe that the greater part of the content of this site now begins “Fearless Says:”…

    “You can’t argue God with someone who will not consider the notion of even his existance. You have to find other means, common ground…

    What I am getting at is that with all of your “fire and Brimstone” rhetoric, it would mean nothing to a person who believes it all to be ancient fairytales…”

    …Which is why Dr. Brown could not convince “Fearless”: no matter what proof Dr. Brown adduced, “Fearless” rejected it out of hand. In this case, the common ground of which you speak is about the size of a postage stamp. The only avenue left is to appeal to the guy’s conscience: God equipped each of us (atheists included) with one of these, and it bears His image and witness to the truth of His word. Hence my “fire and Brimstone rhetoric”, as you called it — which was simply a shot across the guy’s bows. He needs to stop playing games and listen to the voice inside him — if it’s still audible… …If his intellect has been inoculated against evidence, then his conscience is the only thing which has a chance (albeit a very slim one) of making him think again about these “ancient fairytales”.

    Finally, to address the general point… When faced with a convinced and combative atheist, the key question is — as when faced with any other person — “What would Jesus do?”… D’you think He’d've wasted His time trying to tread softly around someone who refused point-blank, and against all evidence, to believe that He even existed?! Or would He have dealt them the card He dealt the scribes, lawyers and Pharisees…?

    Finally, I chuckled about your Jehovah’s Witness reorientation program: I used to do the exact same thing. I say “used to” because they don’t call here, anymore — no doubt they decided it took up too much of their time…

Leave a Reply