American missionary shot full of arrows on remote island

[Herpa Derpa 6,125]

On 11/27/2018 at 5:09 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You know that everyone on that island wants to be on that island?  Very arrogant opinion.   But don't let that stop you.

You know that anyone on that island wants to get off that island? Very arrogant opinion.  But don't let that stop you.

[Herpa Derpa 6,125]

On 11/27/2018 at 5:09 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You know that everyone on that island wants to be on that island?  Very arrogant opinion.   But don't let that stop you.

You know that anyone on that island wants to get off that island? Very arrogant opinion.  But don't let that stop you.

[SurlyBDR 22,776]

[Asithappens 974]

1 hour ago, SurlyBDR said:

Lol.

According to some, that's called "evangelism".

[davidg 4,036]

[gsoda3 3,254]

On 11/27/2018 at 9:32 AM, Asithappens said:

Spreading the "good news".

phd is absolutely right: the guy effed up the notion of evangelism and approached with an IQ of 80 (which is generous).

What does evangelism mean to you?

 

On 11/27/2018 at 9:43 AM, Asithappens said:

Yes, and trying to spread the story despite it being illegal, the natives not being receptive to the extent that they will kill you.

That's not evangelism. That's extreme cult-like behavior.

 

On 11/27/2018 at 3:03 PM, Asithappens said:

I've told you both what I think evangelism is (spreading the good news" and what it is not (this particular example where the risks are so apparent that it is foolish to engage the audience).

All you have done is state "you don't know what evangelism means." To which I have said, then please educate me.

No such education is forthcoming, is it?

 

On 11/27/2018 at 3:16 PM, phdhorn said:

Late back to the party, but this is a good start, coupled with the fact that people idiotically think that Paul's Apostolic journeys, which were unique and purposed for that exact time and situation, are some sort of "model" for evangelization.  They're not.  Never were supposed to be.  Most of the Apostles didn't leave Jerusalem for years, in a few cases a decade or two, after Christ's death.  They were also gifted with speech in languages where they were eventually going to go, and they went and settled there, most of them either in Rome, a few in other places.  But apparently most of them moved there to live, not to "plant".  They remained in those locations until their martyrdom or natural death and were seen as people in the community as much as anyone else.

This guy had a totally fucked up notion that he was to go out and "spread the Word" drawn from no doubt twisted sources (and I have a whole shitload on what the Finneys and Moodys did in the late 19th Century to twist all that) when that was never his job, qualification, nor duty.  It was a stupid decision he made, where if he had actually talked to someone who knows the history of how the church actually spread, would have said don't do it, it's illegal and idiotic.

And now all he's spreading is possible contamination (although experts are saying that there is "little probability" of the islanders being affected by his corpse to start an epidemic.  But that remains to be seen I guess).

Anyway, he had no business going there and was guided by an absolutely idiotic, dangerous tenet of "theology" that was 1) nowhere near anywhere in New Testament resources, and 2) has been gruesomely twisted into something it was never supposed to be.

the word evangelist comes from the greek word meaning "good news".  an evangelion was a runner who brought good news to a city,  for example of a military victory over another city-state.  there are qualifications for being an evangelist (chosen by the Lord, faithful, truthful, steadfast to correct theology with a repentant heart), but none of what you two have said in those quotes is a qualification for an evangelist.  an evangelist preaches the good news of Jesus's defeat of death via his death and resurrection and the subsequent arrival of God's kingdom on earth to those who repent from sin.  full stop.  there's no "but it has to match the political situation!" or "the natives don't want to be contacted or killed by germs!" or anything other qualification.

 

of the apostles, all but one died martyrs' deaths for being evangelists.  some died in the city they had lived in for decades.  some died in foreign places bringing the gospel to those people.  john was exiled, he alone died of old age.  the apostles weren't the only evangelists.  there are others specifically called evangelists, and the definition of evangelist covers what Jesus did in preaching the gospel to the public.  

 

 

[Brisketexan 105,097]

27 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

an evangelist preaches the good news of Jesus's defeat of death via his death and resurrection and the subsequent arrival of God's kingdom on earth to those who repent from sin.  full stop.  there's no "but it has to match the political situation!" or "the natives don't want to be contacted or killed by germs!" or anything other qualification.

Actually, I'm pretty confident in the "don't kill 'em in the process of preaching to them" exclusion.  And yes, I am aware of history, and how that exclusion has been mostly observed in the breach.  But absolutely, if I know that me "bringing the good news" to them will fucking kill them with my germs, then I am consciously and purposefully killing them.  There's like, a whole commandment devoted to that.  I don't think it was voided in the New Testament.

[phdhorn 6,224]

35 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

 

 

 

the word evangelist comes from the greek word meaning "good news".  an evangelion was a runner who brought good news to a city,  for example of a military victory over another city-state.  there are qualifications for being an evangelist (chosen by the Lord, faithful, truthful, steadfast to correct theology with a repentant heart), but none of what you two have said in those quotes is a qualification for an evangelist.  an evangelist preaches the good news of Jesus's defeat of death via his death and resurrection and the subsequent arrival of God's kingdom on earth to those who repent from sin.  full stop.  there's no "but it has to match the political situation!" or "the natives don't want to be contacted or killed by germs!" or anything other qualification.

 

of the apostles, all but one died martyrs' deaths for being evangelists.  some died in the city they had lived in for decades.  some died in foreign places bringing the gospel to those people.  john was exiled, he alone died of old age.  the apostles weren't the only evangelists.  there are others specifically called evangelists, and the definition of evangelist covers what Jesus did in preaching the gospel to the public.  

 

 

I had about 10 paragraphs written out on this but said fuck it, no one really cares.  So here are 6 or 7 shorter ones, lol!

Much of what you're saying is the traditional, through-time filtered explanation.  But during the New Testament, almost none of what are traditional Christian staples - the pastor, sermons, "preaching" as we know it, and almost every single thing that we take for granted today - weren't anywhere in the scripture.  And people gravely mistake the mission (notice i said that word) of the Apostolic Age (which ended of course likely with John - the last Apostle to die so we think) - and especially Paul - with contemporary Christian assumptions.  In fact, most of the Apostles stayed at Jerusalem for at least a decade after Jesus' ascension, and none of them except Paul and those in his group actually went on nonstop seed planting journeys.  Almost all of the other ones moved to certain regions and stayed there ministering to that church.  In fact, the idea of "missions" besides Paul's (and those disciples designated under some of the Apostles) was almost unheard of.  The New Testament Church's bulk and file was overwhelmingly community-oriented and usually grew by people coming to them (largely because their gatherings were apparently incredible - far, far from the boring shit we get a lot now), without pastors, priests, "mission teams" or anything.  And it grew faster than at any period since (in percentage terms).

Part of the 10 or whatever paragraphs I had included how this all got twisted through the ages, and especially began to model itself after popular secular institutions and bodies (nothing per se wrong with that, but it did fuck up the church - a lot).  Until what we know of today regarding "missionaries" is largely a post-Industrial Revolution phenomenon as communication and mobility got better and cheaper; in the process, Finney and Moody used a "salvation first" model (not at all what the early church practiced) to do these huge campaign swaths and generate money to self-sustain their efforts.  Not per se pure deception, but clearly a huge twist in the process.  And there is a shitton to say on all that, until today, shit like this can happen because some poor, good-guy schmuck gets it so out of whack - and it kills him.

It's not to say that any mission outside of your community is wrong, but 90% of them are ignorant and don't understand at all the Great Commission and how the early Church operated.  And in the process have spread disease and colonialist tendencies which have killed as many as have "saved" (which some blithely write off as "God's Plan" or some bullshit like that).  Anyway, to sum: 

1) Evangelism and missionary are by no means interchangeable, and in fact are mostly not.
2) "Missions" in the New Testament were: a) done 99% by Paul & co., in one special dispensation over 30 or so years, b) not really done by the Apostles themselves, mostly who either moved to Rome, or moved and settled permanently in several more distant communities as members of that non-itinerant community, and c) not done at all by the rank and file of the early Christian Church outside of their own communities.
3) The idea of "missions" being something that's intrinsic in the Christian church as we know it today didn't even really develop full force until the Industrial Revolution and especially by the post-Camp Meeting crowd who morphed the main message to individual salvation (something that the early church hardly ever discussed or entertained in their services themselves).

There's a lot more, but this guy was doing something that from all accounts looks like was pointless and only a recent bastardization of the gamut of Christian priorities for individuals.  And it got him turned into a pin cushion, leaving the actual communities that he apparently helped immensely with stuff he was purposed to do, lacking of his work in those areas.

Yeah, a lose-lose deal if there ever was one.  All because some idiot(s) somewhere said/wrote shit that he took to be a "mission."

Edited November 29, 2018 by phdhorn

[Netzer 157]

Obviously the island infidels anticipated that they had this kind of Christian history and biblical exegesis bullshit coming. So they exterminated the guy preemptively. Good on them.

Who wants to sit down and learn this useless fantasy garbage, only to pointlessly argue about it later, when that same precious time could be spent fucking and living the good life on one's own private island?

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

the word evangelist comes from the greek word meaning "good news".  an evangelion was a runner who brought good news to a city,  for example of a military victory over another city-state.  there are qualifications for being an evangelist (chosen by the Lord, faithful, truthful, steadfast to correct theology with a repentant heart), but none of what you two have said in those quotes is a qualification for an evangelist.  an evangelist preaches the good news of Jesus's defeat of death via his death and resurrection and the subsequent arrival of God's kingdom on earth to those who repent from sin.  full stop.  there's no "but it has to match the political situation!" or "the natives don't want to be contacted or killed by germs!" or anything other qualification.
 
of the apostles, all but one died martyrs' deaths for being evangelists.  some died in the city they had lived in for decades.  some died in foreign places bringing the gospel to those people.  john was exiled, he alone died of old age.  the apostles weren't the only evangelists.  there are others specifically called evangelists, and the definition of evangelist covers what Jesus did in preaching the gospel to the public.  
 
 

Who cares? The asshole got what was coming to him.

[Asithappens 974]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But absolutely, if I know that me "bringing the good news" to them will fucking kill them with my germs, then I am consciously and purposefully killing them.

You're just sending them to Jesus sooner.

C'mon, dude. The soul is eternal. The body? Just a transitory vessel.

[immortal13 4,059]

4 hours ago, SurlyBDR said:

So perfect. Repped

[gsoda3 3,254]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, I'm pretty confident in the "don't kill 'em in the process of preaching to them" exclusion.  And yes, I am aware of history, and how that exclusion has been mostly observed in the breach.  But absolutely, if I know that me "bringing the good news" to them will fucking kill them with my germs, then I am consciously and purposefully killing them.  There's like, a whole commandment devoted to that.  I don't think it was voided in the New Testament.

make no mistake, i'm not saying it was a good idea.  Jesus didn't preach conversion at the tip of a sword.  He preached love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control through a conversion of repentance and belief.  my point was all that other stuff wasn't a qualifier to being an evangelist. 

57 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

I had about 10 paragraphs written out on this but said fuck it, no one really cares.  So here are 6 or 7 shorter ones, lol!

Much of what you're saying is the traditional, through-time filtered explanation.  But during the New Testament, almost none of what are traditional Christian staples - the pastor, sermons, "preaching" as we know it, and almost every single thing that we take for granted today - weren't anywhere in the scripture.  And people gravely mistake the mission (notice i said that word) of the Apostolic Age (which ended of course likely with John - the last Apostle to die so we think) - and especially Paul - with contemporary Christian assumptions.  In fact, most of the Apostles stayed at Jerusalem for at least a decade after Jesus' ascension, and none of them except Paul and those in his group actually went on nonstop seed planting journeys.  Almost all of the other ones moved to certain regions and stayed there ministering to that church.  In fact, the idea of "missions" besides Paul's (and those disciples designated under some of the Apostles) was almost unheard of.  The New Testament Church's bulk and file was overwhelmingly community-oriented and usually grew by people coming to them (largely because their gatherings were apparently incredible - far, far from the boring shit we get a lot now), without pastors, priests, "mission teams" or anything.  And it grew faster than at any period since (in percentage terms).

Part of the 10 or whatever paragraphs I had included how this all got twisted through the ages, and especially began to model itself after popular secular institutions and bodies (nothing per se wrong with that, but it did fuck up the church - a lot).  Until what we know of today regarding "missionaries" is largely a post-Industrial Revolution phenomenon as communication and mobility got better and cheaper; in the process, Finney and Moody used a "salvation first" model (not at all what the early church practiced) to do these huge campaign swaths and generate money to self-sustain their efforts.  Not per se pure deception, but clearly a huge twist in the process.  And there is a shitton to say on all that, until today, shit like this can happen because some poor, good-guy schmuck gets it so out of whack - and it kills him.

It's not to say that any mission outside of your community is wrong, but 90% of them are ignorant and don't understand at all the Great Commission and how the early Church operated.  And in the process have spread disease and colonialist tendencies which have killed as many as have "saved" (which some blithely write off as "God's Plan" or some bullshit like that).  Anyway, to sum: 

1) Evangelism and missionary are by no means interchangeable, and in fact are mostly not.
2) "Missions" in the New Testament were: a) done 99% by Paul & co., in one special dispensation over 30 or so years, b) not really done by the Apostles themselves, mostly who either moved to Rome, or moved and settled permanently in several more distant communities as members of that non-itinerant community, and c) not done at all by the rank and file of the early Christian Church outside of their own communities.
3) The idea of "missions" being something that's intrinsic in the Christian church as we know it today didn't even really develop full force until the Industrial Revolution and especially by the post-Camp Meeting crowd who morphed the main message to individual salvation (something that the early church hardly ever discussed or entertained in their services themselves).

There's a lot more, but this guy was doing something that from all accounts looks like was pointless and only a recent bastardization of the gamut of Christian priorities for individuals.  And it got him turned into a pin cushion, leaving the actual communities that he apparently helped immensely with stuff he was purposed to do, lacking of his work in those areas.

Yeah, a lose-lose deal if there ever was one.  All because some idiot(s) somewhere said/wrote shit that he took to be a "mission."

1.)  i care.  thanks for the detailed response and the time/thought you put in to it.  

2.)  the apostolic age was different in that it primarily served to prove to others the Holy Spirit had come and come in power.  that's why the miracles (healings, tongues, signs) which were prevalent then aren't seen past that age.  

3.)  this next point you make about the apostles not going anywhere and 99% of the missions being done by paul i find so odd as to think there must be a miscommunication somewhere.  the majority of the apostles went on "missions".  i'm not sure how you're defining that word, but they were in every sense missions.  andrew went to russia and asia minor.  thomas went to the indian subcontinent.  bartholomew, philip, and matthew went to africa.  others stayed closer to home-  james, simon zealot, and matthias, they went to persia.  we know about paul.  each one of these apostles died in the place they went to at the hands of executioners.  

[Brisketexan 105,097]

5 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

make no mistake, i'm not saying it was a good idea.  Jesus didn't preach conversion at the tip of a sword.  He preached love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control through a conversion of repentance and belief.  my point was all that other stuff wasn't a qualifier to being an evangelist. 

And I'm saying more than "it wasn't a good idea."  I'm saying that it was sinful.  It was done 1) out of vanity (hero-savior complex at play), and 2) with KNOWING disregard for the fact that exposure to him would almost certainly kill many members of the tribe.  Being willing to commit murder to prop up your ego is a hell of a sin cocktail, and it ain't neutralized by a "but I was doing it for Jesus" shot.

[gsoda3 3,254]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And I'm saying more than "it wasn't a good idea."  I'm saying that it was sinful.  It was done 1) out of vanity (hero-savior complex at play), and 2) with KNOWING disregard for the fact that exposure to him would almost certainly kill many members of the tribe.  Being willing to commit murder to prop up your ego is a hell of a sin cocktail, and it ain't neutralized by a "but I was doing it for Jesus" shot.

well agree to disagree then.  i don't think he had a savior complex.  not from reading what he'd written.  i think he was doing it out of obedience, not vanity.  

[Brisketexan 105,097]

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

well agree to disagree then.  i don't think he had a savior complex.  not from reading what he'd written.  i think he was doing it out of obedience, not vanity.  

Even taking away the vanity.....MURDER.  He KNEW that his body was a deadly weapon.  He chose to deploy it anyway, because Jesus.  I'm sorry, the sin is so grave that no evangelical purpose can trump it.  And you know that.  Jesus didn't void the decalogue.

[phdhorn 6,224]

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

3.)  this next point you make about the apostles not going anywhere and 99% of the missions being done by paul i find so odd as to think there must be a miscommunication somewhere.  the majority of the apostles went on "missions".  i'm not sure how you're defining that word, but they were in every sense missions.  andrew went to russia and asia minor.  thomas went to the indian subcontinent.  bartholomew, philip, and matthew went to africa.  others stayed closer to home-  james, simon zealot, and matthias, they went to persia.  we know about paul.  each one of these apostles died in the place they went to at the hands of executioners.  

With the exception of Paul and much less to a degree Peter, every one of those Apostles you mention who didn't venture out of the Judean region moved there to minister to the church, not to convert believers - and with the exception of Thomas, not regarded as out of the "usual" world (Roman Empire realm).  And Penticost had a helluva lot to do with where those guys ended up - something that was only intended to happen, and did only happen, once, period.  Paul and his outfit was the only one who specifically intended to plant seeds without being in that community to primarily be a part of that church and not proselytize.  I think the odd thing is how all of that Age has been twisted through the last 300 years especially to be plopped up as something that we're supposed to do and it's not.  The New Testament church was in no hurry whatsoever to "convert the world."  Far from it - there is absolutely no Scriptural reference to speed or pace (true there were few laborers for a plentiful harvest, but that was not a call of any sort).  Anyway, evagelization today gets too fucked up into being equated with conversion or proselytizing.  The New Testament church evangelized itself every week, with each other, in sharing the "good news" of Jesus without regard to conversion and that's what caused such explosive growth.  It was far more dynamic, democratic, and inclusive than the lousy stuff that passes for much of our Christianity today (yeah, even the Protestants).  Taken from years of secular ceremony, sausage-ground into something where the average churchgoer does nothing but recite silly passages that are tedious by the 1,000th utterance, sits and listens to someone who is usually a "pro" (again, something completely NOT New Testament churchish), and gets little out of it (as a number of studies have shown) beyond a few hours of introspection.  The entire thing got fucked up by the 2nd Century and just got worse.  Fortunately, there is an "organic church" movement which hearkens back to real New Testament Christian practice.  But that's another topic.

Classical Christian recognized missionaries, but almost all of them revolved around Paul by far (he was understood as the designated "mission Apostle" and had a few pow-wows with the Twelve to review his ministry - in the end James and Peter agreed that because this was his special dispensation (bring Christ especially to the Gentiles as Peter was to the smaller in scope Jewish community), he "passed."  

But make no mistake - almost all of the people living in New Testament times would have been stupefied at the notion that  "missions for conversions" was anywhere near a major part of their everyday Christianity - it wasn't, it was in the hands primarily one Apostle and his underlings.  That was unheard of... and almost all of what we practice as "missions" is younger than the invention of the photograph. 

Remember, even Paul was told "don't go there, it;'s a waste of time (2 Tim 1:15 and Acts 16)".  And in fact would be off limits for most of 1,900 years.  This guy wasn't supposed to be there.   He either used complete stupid judgment or simply was arrogant and callous.  Either way, he's now making a patch of sand a little more fertile.  Nice going. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by phdhorn

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

It stands for "posts hour-long diatribes."

[immortal13 4,059]

3 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

well agree to disagree then.  i don't think he had a savior complex.  not from reading what he'd written.  i think he was doing it out of obedience, not vanity.  

How did he even plan on communicating with them then? They use an untranslatable language!  How was he to read the 'Gospel' to them and save their poor, wretched souls from eternal damnation if they can't understand what he is saying?

[Brisketexan 105,097]

5 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

How did he even plan on communicating with them then? They use an untranslatable language!  How was he to read the 'Gospel' to them and save their poor, wretched souls from eternal damnation if they can't understand what he is saying?

I'm sure he'd spoken very LOUDLY, and very s-l-o-w-l-y, so it would have worked out.

[po elvis 2,070]

5 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

How did he even plan on communicating with them then? They use an untranslatable language!  How was he to read the 'Gospel' to them and save their poor, wretched souls from eternal damnation if they can't understand what he is saying?

i think he was in for the long haul. as in live amongst them. he thought if he came in friendly that they would have no reason to not welcome him. he could learn their language. he was pretty naive about the whole thing.

[Asithappens 974]

7 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

How did he even plan on communicating with them then? 

The same way Jesus spreads his message to all the righteous who came before him.

[Herpa Derpa 6,125]

5 minutes ago, po elvis said:

i think he was in for the long haul. as in live amongst them. he thought if he came in friendly that they would have no reason to not welcome him. he could learn their language. he was pretty naive arrogant, stupid, and full of religious hubris about the whole thing.

Fixed

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,976]

I mean, the learning the language bit probably wasn't arrogant. Put two humans who have no common related language together and they will learn to communicate if they don't kill each other first. It was that last part that got him. Not the first though, but at least Jim Elliot and crew were smart enough to lower gifts from an airplane without having to risk getting speared at first. But they still got speared, so yeah.

[formermav43 4,606]

45 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I mean, the learning the language bit probably wasn't arrogant. Put two humans who have no common related language together and they will learn to communicate if they don't kill each other first. It was that last part that got him. Not the first though, but at least Jim Elliot and crew were smart enough to lower gifts from an airplane without having to risk getting speared at first. But they still got speared, so yeah.

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

[mop 18]

8 hours ago, immortal13 said:

How did he even plan on communicating with them then? They use an untranslatable language!  How was he to read the 'Gospel' to them and save their poor, wretched souls from eternal damnation if they can't understand what he is saying?

i can't believe how many times I have seen this point raised.  he planned to live there and learn the language. he wasn't there for a day trip, he was moving to the Island to live with the inhabitants.

[gsoda3 3,254]

PhD,

Didn't want to quote the entire post.

The recorded acts of the NT church revolved around the ministering to those people, yes. Remember that until Paul, the gospel was thought to only be befor the Jews. But the great mystery that was revealed was that the victory over death was for gentiles too. Specific people (the list I gave in my previous post wasn't exhaustive of all the names in the NT) were sent out as evangelists and missionaries to these people to places that didn't have churches. They went as Paul did, preaching the good news, planting churches, and then staying to minister and teach- as Paul did. At least half of the apostles ended up outside of the Judean area engaged in those activities.

You have a notion that missionaries have a hit and run type attitude- none of the missionaries we know do that. Not that it's something that would disqualify someone as an evangelist. Jesus and Paul both preached the gospel moving from place to place. That made up most of Jesus's ministry.

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

Dear baby Jesus, do your magical teleportation thingy with some of the people on this site and send them to North Sentinel Island.

[Loco 3,752]

Narrator: Phd stated his case logically and passionately... but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter.

['stache 21,805]

well agree to disagree then.  i don't think he had a savior complex.  not from reading what he'd written.  i think he was doing it out of obedience, not vanity.  

It absolutely was vanity. I’d posit that most people who act like this do so not because they care about others but to show others how super duper extra bigly Christians they are compared to all those “cafeteria” Christians. Just personal observation and I’m sure you disagree but I’m right and somewhere inside you agree but can’t come to admit it.

[CooterBrown 18,006]

If the Lord did not want him to rot on a beach after bleeding out from 30 arrow wounds, he wouldn’t be doing so.

[Asithappens 974]

45 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

If the Lord did not want him to rot on a beach after bleeding out from 30 arrow wounds, he wouldn’t be doing so.
 

True.

And if the Lord wanted people to hear about the Christian bible he would have told them himself.

[Bill Lumbergh 7,171]

On 11/25/2018 at 10:25 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’m just curious what India’s long term plan is for the north sentinel islanders.

It's estimated they've been isolated on that island for 60,000 years.

What definition of "long term" are you thinking here? 

[mop 18]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

It absolutely was vanity. I’d posit that most people who act like this do so not because they care about others but to show others how super duper extra bigly Christians they are compared to all those “cafeteria” Christians. Just personal observation and I’m sure you disagree but I’m right and somewhere inside you agree but can’t come to admit it.

Obviously, you know next to nothing about John aside from what you have read in the few hastily written articles that have been published. John had built his entire life around getting to that island for 10 years. He first felt called to those islands in high school (he was 26/27) and had made most of his life choices around preparing to be on that island. His heart was to love and serve them and become one of them.  He wasn't on a short term mission trip, he was moving there for the rest of his life or until they understood how much God loved them.  Obviously, if you are materialist reductionist, this will seem the most absurd thing imaginable, but try to imagine that people can actually think differently than you.  Within John's worldview, he was going to love and serve the North Sentinelese.  

 

“You guys might think I’m crazy in all of this but I think it is worth it to declare Jesus to these people. Please do not be angry at them or at God if I get killed. Rather, please live your lives in obedience to whatever he has called you to and I’ll see you again when you pass through the veil. (Don’t recover my body). This is not a pointless thing—the eternal lives of this tribe is at hand and I can’t wait to see them around the throne of God worshipping in their own language as Revelation 7:9-10 states. I love you all and I pray none of you love anything in this world more than Jesus Christ. 

Soli Dei Gloria, 

John Chau, 
November 11/16/18

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

What an idiot asshole.

[immortal13 4,059]

13 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

What an idiot asshole.

This. Fuck that guy 

[mop 18]

8 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

This. Fuck that guy 

you guys have incredibly insightful analyses.  thanks for sharing your wisdom.

[52-80 19,150]

29 minutes ago, mop said:

 He first felt called to those islands in high school (he was 26/27)
 

confirmed dumb-motherfucker if he flunked that many grades.

 

but real talk, if you proved that instead of being vain, he was just severely narrow-minded and absurdly misguided, well then thats a way worse look...

[52-80 19,150]

31 minutes ago, mop said:

, but try to imagine that people can actually think differently than you.  Within John's worldview, he was going to love and serve the North Sentinelese.  
 

lol.

 

 

tried imagining that the sentinelese's worldview is that they dont want to fraternize with a retarded proselytizer?

 

 

[mop 18]

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

confirmed dumb-motherfucker if he flunked that many grades.

 

but real talk, if you proved that instead of being vain, he was just severely narrow-minded and absurdly misguided, well then thats a way worse look...

he was neither. he loved God and studied and grew to love the Sentinelese.   Again, he went there to live there, learn the language, culture and ways of the Sentinelese. He was prepared to live there on that island for years.  He had trained to learn the language,  learn how to preserve and unpreserved language, to survive in the wild and to become part of their society.  He wasn't a colonialist, he was a missionary.  These two have very important distinctions that have been blurred (in large part due to the fault of early expressions of these two classifications which could indeed be both).  

 

[immortal13 4,059]

He should save his fairy tales for people who are interested

[52-80 19,150]

7 minutes ago, mop said:

he was neither. he loved God and studied and grew to love the Sentinelese.   Again, he went there to live there, learn the language, culture and ways of the Sentinelese. He was prepared to live there on that island for years.  He had trained to learn the language,  learn how to preserve and unpreserved language, to survive in the wild and to become part of their society.  He wasn't a colonialist, he was a missionary.  These two have very important distinctions that have been blurred (in large part due to the fault of early expressions of these two classifications which could indeed be both).  

 

imposing himself in a place where he's a banned, unlawful, and expressly unwanted presence ... you know that behavior is either stalking, or terrorism

[mop 18]

4 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

lol.

 

 

tried imagining that the sentinelese's worldview is that they dont want to fraternize with a retarded proselytizer?

 

 

Was William Carey wrong to bring his faith to India? Was he wrong to help bring an end to Sati and to help make child sacrifice illegal? How about the schools and the hospitals that were started as a result of his theological belief that all people were equal and deserved care regardless of which caste they were in?

['stache 21,805]

1 hour ago, mop said:

Obviously, you know next to nothing about John aside from what you have read in the few hastily written articles that have been published. John had built his entire life around getting to that island for 10 years. He first felt called to those islands in high school (he was 26/27) and had made most of his life choices around preparing to be on that island. His heart was to love and serve them and become one of them.  He wasn't on a short term mission trip, he was moving there for the rest of his life or until they understood how much God loved them.  Obviously, if you are materialist reductionist, this will seem the most absurd thing imaginable, but try to imagine that people can actually think differently than you.  Within John's worldview, he was going to love and serve the North Sentinelese.  

 

“You guys might think I’m crazy in all of this but I think it is worth it to declare Jesus to these people. Please do not be angry at them or at God if I get killed. Rather, please live your lives in obedience to whatever he has called you to and I’ll see you again when you pass through the veil. (Don’t recover my body). This is not a pointless thing—the eternal lives of this tribe is at hand and I can’t wait to see them around the throne of God worshipping in their own language as Revelation 7:9-10 states. I love you all and I pray none of you love anything in this world more than Jesus Christ. 

Soli Dei Gloria, 

John Chau, 
November 11/16/18

You seriously don't see the absolute arrogance and vanity in a statement like this?  Would you feel the same if he were a Muslim looking to make them understand the greatness of the prophet?  Christianity is the world's largest religion, and yet 2/3 of the planet does not follow that particular form of religion.  Why does this guy and many others feel so confident that their version is right, so right that everyone should agree, even a society of people who have survived for 60,000 years without the need for that particular form of belief?

[Brisketexan 105,097]

24 minutes ago, mop said:

he was neither. he loved God and studied and grew to love the Sentinelese.   Again, he went there to live there, learn the language, culture and ways of the Sentinelese. He was prepared to live there on that island for years.  He had trained to learn the language,  learn how to preserve and unpreserved language, to survive in the wild and to become part of their society.  He wasn't a colonialist, he was a missionary.  These two have very important distinctions that have been blurred (in large part due to the fault of early expressions of these two classifications which could indeed be both).  

 

Great.  What was his plan for not murdering the entire population via any number of infectious diseases that he might be carrying?  That seems like a pretty important part of the plan.  A part that he didn't have.  Which makes him guilty of attempted genocide.  I don't care how many bibles you're toting, that makes you an evil SOB.

[gsoda3 3,254]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

It absolutely was vanity. I’d posit that most people who act like this do so not because they care about others but to show others how super duper extra bigly Christians they are compared to all those “cafeteria” Christians. Just personal observation and I’m sure you disagree but I’m right and somewhere inside you agree but can’t come to admit it.

people don't uproot their families, sell their possessions, devote years to learning a language, and risk their own lives and their famlies' lives by moving to an unfamiliar place away from family and friends to show how super duper extra bigly christians they are.  that's crazy.  

 

it's fine to admit you don't see it that way and you don't understand, but by continuing to attribute the motives to what you're thinking is way off the mark.

[Brisketexan 105,097]

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

people don't uproot their families, sell their possessions, devote years to learning a language, and risk their own lives and their famlies' lives by moving to an unfamiliar place away from family and friends to show how super duper extra bigly christians they are.  that's crazy.  

 

it's fine to admit you don't see it that way and you don't understand, but by continuing to attribute the motives to what you're thinking is way off the mark.

What about the attempted genocide part?

Seriously, I find this fascinating.  There are several posters on here explaining and justifying his evangelism.....and they all COMPLETELY ignore (not "brush past," but literally completely fail to address) the fact that his presence among this isolated tribe may well have killed them all, and he knew or absolutely should have known that.  

[gsoda3 3,254]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Great.  What was his plan for not murdering the entire population via any number of infectious diseases that he might be carrying?  That seems like a pretty important part of the plan.  A part that he didn't have.  Which makes him guilty of attempted genocide.  I don't care how many bibles you're toting, that makes you an evil SOB.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations*, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

 

*so long as you're current on your vaccinations and your contacts have built an immunity to foreign pathogens.

[gsoda3 3,254]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

What about the attempted genocide part?

Seriously, I find this fascinating.  There are several posters on here explaining and justifying his evangelism.....and they all COMPLETELY ignore (not "brush past," but literally completely fail to address) the fact that his presence among this isolated tribe may well have killed them all, and he knew or absolutely should have known that.  

i'm not only justifying his evangelism i'm condoning it.  it's exactly what Jesus commanded and it's exactly how the early church took that command.  

 

how do we know he didn't take all precautions against spreading an infectious disease?  if he didn't, it's negligent.  i don't think it's sinful-  certainly not an immoral act against God.  those sentinelesians' greatest need is to know about Jesus.  not going because "we could infect them" and not doing anything about it is sinful. it's in direct disobedience to Jesus.

['stache 21,805]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What about the attempted genocide part?

Seriously, I find this fascinating.  There are several posters on here explaining and justifying his evangelism.....and they all COMPLETELY ignore (not "brush past," but literally completely fail to address) the fact that his presence among this isolated tribe may well have killed them all, and he knew or absolutely should have known that.  

They would only die if they refused "the word" and they would go to hell anyway.  If they just accept Jesus into their heart as their lord and savior, then He would would provide all the immunity they need.  Or they would die and go to heaven, which is the whole point, right?  Why you have a problem with that?  What kind of devil worshiping atheist are you?