Woody2006 said:
Did this guy just think these people were gonna magically be able to understand English?
That was my first thought as well
Missionary dies trying to reach an isolated tribe
6,501 Views |
128 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by diehard03
That was my first thought as well
So these people can simply murder with no repercussions. Nuts.
These are not civilized people. Can't expect them to adhere to civilized norms. What would you like to see happen?
Neon R
Joined:
Nov 7, 2018
Posts:
2,567
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is hardly new or unique in the history of Christian evangelism. Here is a recent example of a similar story of a small group succeeding trying the same thing
https://www.maf-uk.org/story/how-five-martyrs-transformed-the-waodani-people-of-ecuador
https://www.maf-uk.org/story/how-five-martyrs-transformed-the-waodani-people-of-ecuador
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I would be more on the guys side if it wasn't illegal to visit this tribe. I feel like this starts to deviate from Christs wish for us to follow the laws.
diehard03 said:
I would be more on the guys side if it wasn't illegal to visit this tribe. I feel like this starts to deviate from Christs wish for us to follow the laws.
Why is it illegal to visit this tribe?
AstroAg17 said:I really view this as self defense, not murder.garc said:
So these people can simply murder with no repercussions. Nuts.
It seems more justifiable than shooting a home intruder for instance.
I'm ready to firebomb this thread.
Let's say there's a large group of people that want a 'better life' bringing diseases from somewhere we'll call "south of the border" that put part of our population at risk. They haven't consulted our government either for permission. Can we kill them? Is it self defense?
AGC said:AstroAg17 said:I really view this as self defense, not murder.garc said:
So these people can simply murder with no repercussions. Nuts.
It seems more justifiable than shooting a home intruder for instance.
I'm ready to firebomb this thread.
Let's say there's a large group of people that want a 'better life' bringing diseases from somewhere we'll call "south of the border" that put part of our population at risk. They haven't consulted our government either for permission. Can we kill them? Is it self defense?
Are they trying to illegally enter a sovereign territory with laws and borders? Can you kill someone trying to break into your home?
As a person who deeply believes in missionary work and spreading the word of God, I couldn't disagree more.PacifistAg said:
Based on the little I've read about this, I applaud him and his willingness to lay his life down to build relationships and spread the Good News of Christ victorious.
This appears to be a case of Christian arrogance. It exists. I've met plenty of people who are equally as concerned with converting people for selfish reasons as much as they are with legitimately spreading the word of God.
AGC said:AstroAg17 said:I really view this as self defense, not murder.garc said:
So these people can simply murder with no repercussions. Nuts.
It seems more justifiable than shooting a home intruder for instance.
I'm ready to firebomb this thread.
Let's say there's a large group of people that want a 'better life' bringing diseases from somewhere we'll call "south of the border" that put part of our population at risk. They haven't consulted our government either for permission. Can we kill them? Is it self defense?
I saw this analogy being used on the internet and while it sounds cool and looks like a "gotcha", it's really a weak analogy.
Presumably, he wasn't looking to go and live on their island. He wasn't there to take over their jobs/roles within the tribe. He came to preach Christ and then would presumably leave (since this appears to have been something he routinely did).
So to try and equate this to what's going on south of the border is really just a silly analogy, but it does sound cool on twitter.
TresPuertas said:As a person who deeply believes in missionary work and spreading the word of God, I couldn't disagree more.PacifistAg said:
Based on the little I've read about this, I applaud him and his willingness to lay his life down to build relationships and spread the Good News of Christ victorious.
This appears to be a case of Christian arrogance. It exists. I've met plenty of people who are equally as concerned with converting people for selfish reasons as much as they are with legitimately spreading the word of God.
Philippians 1:12-18
I want you to know, brothers,e that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.
Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
It seems to me most would never preach to these people because they are too scared to. Not because they are concerned for the people's well-being.
And it seems to me that most would never preach to these people because it's illegal, dangerous, they don't speak English, etc.
Listen, I get it, the call to witness isn't supposed to be easy, but there are multiple things about this guy that indicate he had selfish ambitions. First off, he was an "adventurer" and every picture they have about this guy was a freaking selfie. He lived to
Show off, and I'm certain that one of his great motivations for doing this was to be able to tell people he did and take a damn selfie on the island.
According to the articles his witnessing was shouting bible verses at them. Does this seem genuine to you?
Listen, I get it, the call to witness isn't supposed to be easy, but there are multiple things about this guy that indicate he had selfish ambitions. First off, he was an "adventurer" and every picture they have about this guy was a freaking selfie. He lived to
Show off, and I'm certain that one of his great motivations for doing this was to be able to tell people he did and take a damn selfie on the island.
According to the articles his witnessing was shouting bible verses at them. Does this seem genuine to you?
AgLiving06 said:AGC said:AstroAg17 said:I really view this as self defense, not murder.garc said:
So these people can simply murder with no repercussions. Nuts.
It seems more justifiable than shooting a home intruder for instance.
I'm ready to firebomb this thread.
Let's say there's a large group of people that want a 'better life' bringing diseases from somewhere we'll call "south of the border" that put part of our population at risk. They haven't consulted our government either for permission. Can we kill them? Is it self defense?
I saw this analogy being used on the internet and while it sounds cool and looks like a "gotcha", it's really a weak analogy.
Presumably, he wasn't looking to go and live on their island. He wasn't there to take over their jobs/roles within the tribe. He came to preach Christ and then would presumably leave (since this appears to have been something he routinely did).
So to try and equate this to what's going on south of the border is really just a silly analogy, but it does sound cool on twitter.
It wasn't posted as a gotcha and I was fully cognizant of how silly it was. Hence the firebomb comment. It is perhaps worth mentioning that it is a perfectly fine analogy but you have that confused with the concept of allegory, where there is some hidden meaning or moral message and every element represents something hidden or deeper. That was not my aim. But it probably sounded cool on Twitter to treat it as such.
Illegal and dangerous should really not have any bearing on it. The issue with language is a much more valid reason, but really only impacts delivery method.TresPuertas said:
And it seems to me that most would never preach to these people because it's illegal, dangerous, they don't speak English, etc.
You very well may be right behind his motives. I don't know, as only God can accurately judge those.Quote:
Listen, I get it, the call to witness isn't supposed to be easy, but there are multiple things about this guy that indicate he had selfish ambitions. First off, he was an "adventurer" and every picture they have about this guy was a freaking selfie. He lived to Show off, and I'm certain that one of his great motivations for doing this was to be able to tell people he did and take a damn selfie on the island.
Well, I do believe audible reciting of Scripture, prayers, etc is an effective "weapon" in spiritual warfare. Does simply going on shore and shouting Bible verses an effective way to reach them? Probably not. Like I said, his methods are very much open to critiquing. His desire to spread the Gospel to this unreached people group, I don't believe is.Quote:
According to the articles his witnessing was shouting bible verses at them. Does this seem genuine to you?
TresPuertas said:
And it seems to me that most would never preach to these people because it's illegal, dangerous, they don't speak English, etc.
Listen, I get it, the call to witness isn't supposed to be easy, but there are multiple things about this guy that indicate he had selfish ambitions. First off, he was an "adventurer" and every picture they have about this guy was a freaking selfie. He lived to
Show off, and I'm certain that one of his great motivations for doing this was to be able to tell people he did and take a damn selfie on the island.
According to the articles his witnessing was shouting bible verses at them. Does this seem genuine to you?
I have no idea. He followed his passion to his death. Whether selfish ambition or not, he died trying to preach Christ to unbelievers.
I agree his attempt was foolish. Going in solo predictably ended the way you would expect. But who knows, maybe a seed has been planted like it did when the Waodani people killed Jim Elliot's father.
*snicker* You clearly know nothing about epidemiology.AstroAg17 said:
He's an idiot who risked his own life and the life of everyone on the island. He willingly risked exposing them to diseases which they have no immunity to nor medicine to treat. His heart was in the right place given his worldview, but his actions were stupid. How would you feel if a Muslim with smallpox broke into your home to tell you his good news?
Woody2006 said:
I hate the blatant narcissism it takes to treat uncontacted tribes as though they were wildlife in a nature reserve.
I thought that this would have been a far more interesting direction for the conversation to go.
Quote:
Why is it illegal to visit this tribe?
The Indian government has deemed it so and patrols the waters around the island?
It's like progress has brought us so many modern conveniences that we sort of idealize the simpler times... as though the "simpler" times were better.Solo Tetherball Champ said:Woody2006 said:
I hate the blatant narcissism it takes to treat uncontacted tribes as though they were wildlife in a nature reserve.
I thought that this would have been a far more interesting direction for the conversation to go.
The reality is that modern advances have unequivocally improved the lives of most people on this planet. Those who pretend these people are better off remaining in the stone age are blithely ignorant of the brutal reality day-to-day living in those circumstances presents.
Obviously, there would need to be a period of vaccination and it would take time to earn trust so that we can communicate and interact with these peoples. But treating uncontacted tribes like they are some endangered species we should band together to protect is such narcissistic nonsense.
I'm curious if he was a eschatologist... perhaps he thought if the last of these uncontacted tribes could be told about Jesus it would mean it's time for Jesus to return?TresPuertas said:As a person who deeply believes in missionary work and spreading the word of God, I couldn't disagree more.PacifistAg said:
Based on the little I've read about this, I applaud him and his willingness to lay his life down to build relationships and spread the Good News of Christ victorious.
This appears to be a case of Christian arrogance. It exists. I've met plenty of people who are equally as concerned with converting people for selfish reasons as much as they are with legitimately spreading the word of God.
I agree with PacifistAg.
Woody2006 said:It's like progress has brought us so many modern conveniences that we sort of idealize the simpler times... as though the "simpler" times were better.Solo Tetherball Champ said:Woody2006 said:
I hate the blatant narcissism it takes to treat uncontacted tribes as though they were wildlife in a nature reserve.
I thought that this would have been a far more interesting direction for the conversation to go.
The reality is that modern advances have unequivocally improved the lives of most people on this planet. Those who pretend these people are better off remaining in the stone age are blithely ignorant of the brutal reality day-to-day living in those circumstances presents.
Obviously, there would need to be a period of vaccination and it would take time to earn trust so that we can communicate and interact with these peoples. But treating uncontacted tribes like they are some endangered species we should band together to protect is such narcissistic nonsense.
I don't know that it's narcissistic necessarily. It seems like a very modern mindset. Are all cultures equal? Are all good? If you believe those things then it makes sense that you would be averse to this; what makes your culture or way of life better than theirs? It almost requires a complete lack of conviction of belief in your own way of life.
I think leaving them isolated is just a backlash against colonialism. The tribe has made their opinion of the matter clear, so to most people there is no good reason to go against that. Like someone already said, if the island had diamonds, gold, oil, or an endangered species then no one would give two thoughts to "preserving the innonence" of these natives.
Whatever his motives and methods, this man at least saw that these people were human and deserved o here the most important message ever told (in his eyes and mine). Someone else already remarked that this tribe was believed wiped out by a tsunami and no one lifted a finger to help or check on them. So the all the teeth gnashing about protecting them from diseases rings a bit hollow
Whatever his motives and methods, this man at least saw that these people were human and deserved o here the most important message ever told (in his eyes and mine). Someone else already remarked that this tribe was believed wiped out by a tsunami and no one lifted a finger to help or check on them. So the all the teeth gnashing about protecting them from diseases rings a bit hollow
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
AGC said:Woody2006 said:It's like progress has brought us so many modern conveniences that we sort of idealize the simpler times... as though the "simpler" times were better.Solo Tetherball Champ said:Woody2006 said:
I hate the blatant narcissism it takes to treat uncontacted tribes as though they were wildlife in a nature reserve.
I thought that this would have been a far more interesting direction for the conversation to go.
The reality is that modern advances have unequivocally improved the lives of most people on this planet. Those who pretend these people are better off remaining in the stone age are blithely ignorant of the brutal reality day-to-day living in those circumstances presents.
Obviously, there would need to be a period of vaccination and it would take time to earn trust so that we can communicate and interact with these peoples. But treating uncontacted tribes like they are some endangered species we should band together to protect is such narcissistic nonsense.
I don't know that it's narcissistic necessarily. It seems like a very modern mindset. Are all cultures equal? Are all good? If you believe those things then it makes sense that you would be averse to this; what makes your culture or way of life better than theirs? It almost requires a complete lack of conviction of belief in your own way of life.
Life expectancy, infant mortality, death rates by violence or starvation, etc.
There are certainly other countries and cultures that have made much less progress on these and other measures of human flourishing the difference is being exposed. If someone has the option of adopting modern conveniences and shuns it for a simpler way of life, that's his choice. But at least that person gets to make that choice.
Modern humans actively prevent these uncontacted tribes from any exposure to that choice. That's my primary issue with it.
Two weeks ago I had never heard of the Sentinelese. Now I have prayed for them that they would be reached.Quote:
Certainly at this time nothing good has come of his actions. But who knows? 5-10 years down the road a tribesmember who participated in his killing may look back on these actions with regret and investigate the gospel of Christ. Unlikely but possible.
I dont disagree with your comments re: modernatization vs leaving them be in their "old ways"
Overall this is pretty fascinating. I realize there are plenty of places / tribes / etc that remain very isolated but I honeslty had no idea such an extreme version existed. I am somewhat suprised that the Indian government has never put in place even say a "20 year plan" to slowly indoctrinate the people to new technologies / medicine / etc while being mindful of diseases etc. Seems like you could still allow them their solidarity all while improving their way of life some.
Overall this is pretty fascinating. I realize there are plenty of places / tribes / etc that remain very isolated but I honeslty had no idea such an extreme version existed. I am somewhat suprised that the Indian government has never put in place even say a "20 year plan" to slowly indoctrinate the people to new technologies / medicine / etc while being mindful of diseases etc. Seems like you could still allow them their solidarity all while improving their way of life some.
Quote:
I am somewhat suprised that the Indian government has never put in place even say a "20 year plan" to slowly indoctrinate the people to new technologies / medicine / etc while being mindful of diseases etc. Seems like you could still allow them their solidarity all while improving their way of life some.
It seems strange to spend the money to patrol an area for less than 500 people.
planoaggie123 said:
I dont disagree with your comments re: modernatization vs leaving them be in their "old ways"
Overall this is pretty fascinating. I realize there are plenty of places / tribes / etc that remain very isolated but I honeslty had no idea such an extreme version existed. I am somewhat suprised that the Indian government has never put in place even say a "20 year plan" to slowly indoctrinate the people to new technologies / medicine / etc while being mindful of diseases etc. Seems like you could still allow them their solidarity all while improving their way of life some.
There are tribes like this in New Zealand and other places in the world as well. The international community mostly treats these people like endangered animals and try to protect their habitats.
I'm not gonna lie... that story sounds made up. Crazy stuff assuming it's true.
JJMt said:100% true and complete. What do I need to convince you? It's difficult to think of how to do so without giving up anonymity.Woody2006 said:
I'm not gonna lie... that story sounds made up. Crazy stuff assuming it's true.
I believe you, just a crazy story.
Cade Harris
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
88
Cade Harris
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
80
Cade Harris
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
72
Cade Harris
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
67
Cade Harris
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
62
TayTrox
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
60
Cade Harris
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
59
Big Shooter
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
57