now in this guy's defense he probably believed this was the last place that had not heard the gospel so he had to go there. I'm not sure I agree with him intentionally breaking the law to do it, but he knew the risk was death and accepted it. he did not go there with islam where their choice would be to accept or they be killed, which is pretty pathetic imo. but that's the charge to spread the gospel. arthur blessitt went all over the world and took the same risks. I dare say that kind of commitment is definitely strong and worthy to your belief, most people do not have that kind of commitment to anything besides their dog
There comes a point when virtue signalling comes full circle and this might just be it. Where pointing out presupposed virtue signalling is in itself virtue signalling.
This is one of the commands of Jesus Christ Himself, that we forgive those who do evil to us. Did He not say on the cross "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do?" and entrust His spirit to He who judges righteously?
Now, I'm well aware of the hypocrisy of those who call themselves Christian today and virtue signal, but this doesn't fall under that. Even the people who knew him said he understood the risks before he ventured out there. He put his life where his values were and he lived attempting to spread the Gospel of Christ.
And this is the critical point. Instead of this guy saying "you guys should do X or Y like me" and sounding trumpets about it, he just went out and did it, though it cost him his life. This is one of the highest ideals of a Christian life. It takes utmost courage to go in unarmed to a place where you know that people will likely attack and you haven't the slightest intention of defending yourself.
But, more to the point. You're classifying this as virtue signalling when the only mention of the family's forgiveness of the tribe that fatally wounded him is a single sentence at the top of the article that's not even a direct quote.
I have no doubt that people virtue signal today, but this isn't it.
The Sentinelese should be left alone, period! They're in their own territory, living their own lifestyle, abiding by their own beliefs and rules. Just leave them to their own devices.
This missionary was struck down by the consequences of his own naivety and unworldliness (in spite of his having the means to travel and see the world, he didn't seem able to understand just what it was he was witness to).
Forgive them for what? Did the tribe ask for their forgiveness? They should in fact beg for forgiveness from the tribe as their son tried to violate their sovereignty and disturb the peace. Do you know this is a tribe that has been isolated for more than 60,000 years? They lack immunity to deal with common ailments. That Missionary chap could have killed the entire tribe by exposing them to his cold or flu or whatever.
Trespassing alone does not warrant murder. He clearly had no intent to commit crime; they should have captured, tried, beaten, and exiled him but instead they murdered him. The perpetrators should be apprehended, tried, and executed for their crime, just like anyone else. The only questions is "by who?" and "on whose dime?"
This is virtue signaling, regardless of the comments above in regard to historical Christian missionary work or the whole "Turn the other cheek" crap.
You don't need to go afield to Africa or some hell jungle in South America or the South Pacific. There's a tougher mission field right here in America. These groups that would rather import third worlder's to America and make money doing so, or organizing mission trips to raise money reveal themselves to be in it for the money.
Want to actually be an effective Christian? Help, support, and do God's work among His children in America. I'm not talking about with homeless people, immivaders, or welfare set. I'm talking about helping struggling businesses without pay, helping the elderly, helping the LMC or the working poor. The doctors and dentists that organize low cost healthcare tours in the US are fine examples. Helping a person's trade or livelihood should be next, as that assistance is tangible money in their pocket that will improve their life.
But that's not nearly as effective a money raiser.
Another thing, too: People can be very domineering---always figuring their beliefs, their way of thinking, what they "learned" to be true or right to be the actual reality, instead of just years of anecdotal experiences and reinforced thought patterns. And, being pompous and assuming, not think twice about "enlightening" or "imparting arcane knowledge" to anyone they deem to be "in the dark" about certain things they "know" to "be so". Having this type of officious demeanor they think nothing of meddling in the affairs of others in the name of "setting things right".
8 comments:
now in this guy's defense he probably believed this was the last place that had not heard the gospel so he had to go there. I'm not sure I agree with him intentionally breaking the law to do it, but he knew the risk was death and accepted it. he did not go there with islam where their choice would be to accept or they be killed, which is pretty pathetic imo.
but that's the charge to spread the gospel. arthur blessitt went all over the world and took the same risks.
I dare say that kind of commitment is definitely strong and worthy to your belief, most people do not have that kind of commitment to anything besides their dog
There comes a point when virtue signalling comes full circle and this might just be it. Where pointing out presupposed virtue signalling is in itself virtue signalling.
This is one of the commands of Jesus Christ Himself, that we forgive those who do evil to us. Did He not say on the cross "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do?" and entrust His spirit to He who judges righteously?
Now, I'm well aware of the hypocrisy of those who call themselves Christian today and virtue signal, but this doesn't fall under that. Even the people who knew him said he understood the risks before he ventured out there. He put his life where his values were and he lived attempting to spread the Gospel of Christ.
And this is the critical point. Instead of this guy saying "you guys should do X or Y like me" and sounding trumpets about it, he just went out and did it, though it cost him his life. This is one of the highest ideals of a Christian life. It takes utmost courage to go in unarmed to a place where you know that people will likely attack and you haven't the slightest intention of defending yourself.
But, more to the point. You're classifying this as virtue signalling when the only mention of the family's forgiveness of the tribe that fatally wounded him is a single sentence at the top of the article that's not even a direct quote.
I have no doubt that people virtue signal today, but this isn't it.
The Sentinelese should be left alone, period!
They're in their own territory, living their own lifestyle, abiding by their own beliefs and rules.
Just leave them to their own devices.
This missionary was struck down by the consequences of his own naivety and unworldliness (in spite of his having the means to travel and see the world, he didn't seem able to understand just what it was he was witness to).
Forgive them for what? Did the tribe ask for their forgiveness? They should in fact beg for forgiveness from the tribe as their son tried to violate their sovereignty and disturb the peace. Do you know this is a tribe that has been isolated for more than 60,000 years? They lack immunity to deal with common ailments. That Missionary chap could have killed the entire tribe by exposing them to his cold or flu or whatever.
Borg missionary tried to assimilate tribe.
Tribe permanenntly BTFO Borg missionary.
Tribe doesn't need to be forgiven.
"The Sentinelese should be left alone, period!"
Trespassing alone does not warrant murder. He clearly had no intent to commit crime; they should have captured, tried, beaten, and exiled him but instead they murdered him. The perpetrators should be apprehended, tried, and executed for their crime, just like anyone else. The only questions is "by who?" and "on whose dime?"
This is virtue signaling, regardless of the comments above in regard to historical Christian missionary work or the whole "Turn the other cheek" crap.
You don't need to go afield to Africa or some hell jungle in South America or the South Pacific. There's a tougher mission field right here in America. These groups that would rather import third worlder's to America and make money doing so, or organizing mission trips to raise money reveal themselves to be in it for the money.
Want to actually be an effective Christian? Help, support, and do God's work among His children in America. I'm not talking about with homeless people, immivaders, or welfare set. I'm talking about helping struggling businesses without pay, helping the elderly, helping the LMC or the working poor. The doctors and dentists that organize low cost healthcare tours in the US are fine examples. Helping a person's trade or livelihood should be next, as that assistance is tangible money in their pocket that will improve their life.
But that's not nearly as effective a money raiser.
Another thing, too:
People can be very domineering---always figuring their beliefs, their way of thinking, what they "learned" to be true or right to be the actual reality, instead of just years of anecdotal experiences and reinforced thought patterns.
And, being pompous and assuming, not think twice about "enlightening" or "imparting arcane knowledge" to anyone they deem to be "in the dark" about certain things they "know" to "be so".
Having this type of officious demeanor they think nothing of meddling in the affairs of others in the name of "setting things right".
Post a Comment