American missionary shot full of arrows on remote island

[Brisketexan 103,143]

Just now, gsoda3 said:

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.

Wow.

There ARE no adequate precautions against spreading an infectious disease to an isolated population.  And KNOWING that, and doing so anyway, is NOT "negligent."  It's purposeful and reckless.  The facts are these:

1 - in order to personally share the gospel with the Sentinalese, you must

2 - expose them to pathogens that will likely kill some/all of them.

 

Jesus didn't repeal the decalogue.  "Thou shall not kill" is still good law.  Had he completed his journey, he would have broken that commandment.  But I guess that if you're trying to spread the gospel, you can break all the commandments along the way.  I had no idea that evangelizing granted you complete immunity to all sins committed in the course of that act.  Interesting.  Not true and utter bullshit, but an interesting take.

[tokamak 6,321]

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).  
 

Since you seem to know something, I'm curious about how he "studied" them. My impression is that any serious published material or credible expert that one could consult regarding the Sentinelese indicates loudly and clearly that they do not wish to be contacted by modern civilization.

[Brisketexan 103,143]

11 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

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.

And actually, YES, applied to current facts, that's EXACTLY how to read this.  It doesn't say "go forth....and break all the commandments you want, it's cool."  If going forth among these particular people will most likely KILL THEM, in violation of a clear commandment, then it should not be done.

[52-80 18,962]

20 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

those sentinelesians' greatest need is to know about Jesus.

if we dont save them, who will?!??!?!

[gsoda3 3,187]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Wow.

There ARE no adequate precautions against spreading an infectious disease to an isolated population.  And KNOWING that, and doing so anyway, is NOT "negligent."  It's purposeful and reckless.  The facts are these:

1 - in order to personally share the gospel with the Sentinalese, you must

2 - expose them to pathogens that will likely kill some/all of them.

 

Jesus didn't repeal the decalogue.  "Thou shall not kill" is still good law.  Had he completed his journey, he would have broken that commandment.  But I guess that if you're trying to spread the gospel, you can break all the commandments along the way.  I had no idea that evangelizing granted you complete immunity to all sins committed in the course of that act.  Interesting.  Not true and utter bullshit, but an interesting take.

the narrative of "he'll kill them all with a common cold" is a nice one for opponents to latch on to but in this day and age that's far from likely.  we've reached out to so many remote tribes in SE asia espcially in the past 50 years without completely wiping them out.  how many amazonians did jim elliot and his group spread disease to?  

 

let me ask you this:  since you say they'll be wiped out with any exposure from the outside, at what point do you go to the sentinelese?  or do we never go?  as a Christ obeying Christian there's only one option-  to go.  but it seems like you're saying not to ever go. 

[gsoda3 3,187]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And actually, YES, applied to current facts, that's EXACTLY how to read this.  It doesn't say "go forth....and break all the commandments you want, it's cool."  If going forth among these particular people will most likely KILL THEM, in violation of a clear commandment, then it should not be done.

 

"thou shalt not murder" is not what you think it is.  applying that to this situation is an error. 

 

[Brisketexan 103,143]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

 

"thou shalt not murder" is not what you think it is.  applying that to this situation is an error. 

 

No, it's not an error.  When you KNOW that your conduct is likely to kill someone, you've broken the commandment.  It's not that complicated.  "Hey, I didn't KNOW that tossing a petri dish of pathogens among a people with ZERO immunity to ANY modern diseases would kill them FOR SURE" -- nope.  Not a defense.  Yes you did.  You did know.  And KNOWING THAT FACT, you willfully CONTINUED with that course of action.

Sorry.  He knew, and was willing to commit genocide, in order to fulfill a lesser command (and, I contend, his ego, no matter how much he cloaked it in sincerity and purity).

Oh, and I am absolutely saying "never go."  Time and circumstance have created a situation where going to them creates too much of a risk of harm/death to them.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Brisketexan

[52-80 18,962]

44 minutes ago, mop said:

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?

i applaud that, in 2018, your holding on to the notion of mission civilisatrice, as noble and commendable.

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

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).  
 

Want my analyses? You are an idiot. Perhaps not as dumb as your Jesus boy hero idiot, but one nonetheless.

You keep ignoring two huge elephants in the room.

1. He completely disregarded the health and livelihood of the people you seem to think he cared so much about by potentially introducing deadly pathogens to the island.

2. If he was so well versed in their culture and language, he should have known and respected that these people want to be left alone. They don’t want outsiders on their island.

What don’t you fucking understand about that? It makes not a single shit how noble you or he thinks his intentions were. He was selfish, foolish and prideful. Fuck him and I feel not one bit of sadness for a dipshit that gets what’s coming to him in the face of all that.

[52-80 18,962]

1 minute ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Want my analyses? You are an idiot. Perhaps not as dumb as your Jesus boy hero idiot, but one nonetheless.

You keep ignoring two huge elephants in the room.

1. He completely disregarded the health and livelihood of the people you seem to think he cared so much about by potentially introducing deadly pathogens to the island.

2. If he was so well versed in their culture and language, he should have known and respected that these people want to be left alone. They don’t want outsiders on their island.

What don’t you fucking understand about that? It makes not a single shit how noble you or he thinks his intentions were. He was selfish, foolish and prideful. Fuck him and I feel not one bit of sadness for a dipshit that gets what’s coming to him in the face of all that.

white man's burden, yo

[Jerry Callo 8,626]

WWJD

[gsoda3 3,187]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No, it's not an error.  When you KNOW that your conduct is likely to kill someone, you've broken the commandment.  It's not that complicated.  "Hey, I didn't KNOW that tossing a petri dish of pathogens among a people with ZERO immunity to ANY modern diseases would kill them FOR SURE" -- nope.  Not a defense.  Yes you did.  You did know.  And KNOWING THAT FACT, you willfully CONTINUED with that course of action.

Sorry.  He knew, and was willing to commit genocide, in order to fulfill a lesser command (and, I contend, his ego, no matter how much he cloaked it in sincerity and purity).

Oh, and I am absolutely saying "never go."  Time and circumstance have created a situation where going to them creates too much of a risk of harm/death to them.

like i said, western civilization has made contact with remote cultures many times in the past 50 years and how many times has what you're describing happened?  a petri dish of modern pathogens wiping them out?  yeah.  it's not likely to happen, much less a certainty it will happen.  

 

and if you say "never go" you're in complete rebellion, contradiction, and disobedience to Jesus.  there's no way around that.  

[gsoda3 3,187]

12 minutes ago, Jerry Callo said:

WWJD

he went.

[Brisketexan 103,143]

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

like i said, western civilization has made contact with remote cultures many times in the past 50 years and how many times has what you're describing happened?  a petri dish of modern pathogens wiping them out?  yeah.  it's not likely to happen, much less a certainty it will happen.  

 

and if you say "never go" you're in complete rebellion, contradiction, and disobedience to Jesus.  there's no way around that.  

I say "never go" unless/until you have strong assurance that your presence won't kill them.

And as to you references of other remote cultures, most all of them in the past century HAVE had prior contact, and thus exposure to modern pathogens.  And maybe it wouldn't "wipe them out."  Maybe the diseases would only kill a dozen of them.

I must have missed the part where "I mean, if you're only going to kill twelve people, then that's cool" exception to the commandment.  Will my contact likely kill a single person? If so, then my contact is a known deadly weapon, and if I knowingly deploy it, I am fully culpable.  By ANY moral code, including the one embedded in the scriptures.

[gsoda3 3,187]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I say "never go" unless/until you have strong assurance that your presence won't kill them.

And as to you references of other remote cultures, most all of them in the past century HAVE had prior contact, and thus exposure to modern pathogens.  And maybe it wouldn't "wipe them out."  Maybe the diseases would only kill a dozen of them.

I must have missed the part where "I mean, if you're only going to kill twelve people, then that's cool" exception to the commandment.  Will my contact likely kill a single person? If so, then my contact is a known deadly weapon, and if I knowingly deploy it, I am fully culpable.  By ANY moral code, including the one embedded in the scriptures.

is the game plan to let a non-christian get in there first, expose them, kill off a few, have them develop a resistance, and only then go?  

 

as for the strong assurance, based on the past century of interactions with remote tribes since medicine has evolved in to modern medicine, we have pretty strong assurance we're not going to cause a catastrophic event.  

 

 

[52-80 18,962]

2 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

is the game plan to let a non-christian get in there first, expose them, kill off a few, have them develop a resistance, and only then go?  

 

as for the strong assurance, based on the past century of interactions with remote tribes since medicine has evolved in to modern medicine, we have pretty strong assurance we're not going to cause a catastrophic event.  

 

 

no, get in there, let the disease spread, then treat the whole population using modern medicine thereby positioning ourselves as the great savior.

 

[Brisketexan 103,143]

Just now, gsoda3 said:

is the game plan to let a non-christian get in there first, expose them, kill off a few, have them develop a resistance, and only then go?  

 

as for the strong assurance, based on the past century of interactions with remote tribes since medicine has evolved in to modern medicine, we have pretty strong assurance we're not going to cause a catastrophic event.  

 

 

1 - the game plan is that I don't want to be the murderer.  Nor do I want anyone else to be the murderer.  If I had any responsibility over, say, a person with a compromised immune system, I would take steps to keep him from being exposed to outsiders.  We, the people of this planet, have responsibility for an entire island of people with no modern immunities.  I say we do as is presently being done -- protect them from contact (like, there are actual LAWS against it here).

2 - bullshit.  ONE DEATH is a catastrophic event.  And we know -- from the LAST TIME THEY WERE CONTACTED, people died.  Look it up.  

Bullshit rationalization - reflecting a complete disregard for the lives of others - like this is why people hate Christianity.   And as a Christian, I can't blame them.

[formermav43 4,599]

27 minutes ago, Jerry Callo said:

WWJD

He died too.

[1978horn 864]

What about "obey the law of the land"  The law was to stay 5 miles away from the island. 

I know missionaries that lie about why they going to countries so that they can get in.   If you lie that is a sin as well.  It seems that missionaries like to justify their sin because it is for the cause.  But then again they can say forgive me and then they are good to go.

[52-80 18,962]

1 minute ago, 1978horn said:

What about "obey the law of the land"  The law was to stay 5 miles away from the island. 

I know missionaries that lie about why they going to countries so that they can get in.   If you lie that is a sin as well.  It seems that missionaries like to justify their sin because it is for the cause.  But then again they can say forgive me and then they are good to go.

i learned about this in the corporate world.  do things first, and then ask for permission/apologize later.

[gsoda3 3,187]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

2 - bullshit.  ONE DEATH is a catastrophic event.  And we know -- from the LAST TIME THEY WERE CONTACTED, people died.  Look it up.  

 

i don't remember any sentinelese dying from disease other than the first encounter with the british 130 years ago.  and then i looked it up and still couldn't find any deaths.  the threat of disease isn't as big a threat as you would have it be.  it's convenient for people who disagree with this to latch on to that argument though. 

[Brisketexan 103,143]

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

i don't remember any sentinelese dying from disease other than the first encounter with the british 130 years ago.  and then i looked it up and still couldn't find any deaths.  the threat of disease isn't as big a threat as you would have it be.  it's convenient for people who disagree with this to latch on to that argument though. 

Ummmm.  That WAS the personal encounter to which I was referring.  So, yeah, other than the evidence that proves my point, there's no evidence.

Come on, man.  Stop.  The phenomenon of isolated tribes being vulnerable to infection by modern diseases is incredibly well-documented.  The phenomenon of THIS tribe, when exposed to material contact with outsiders, having members die of disease, is SPECIFICALLY documented.

Every scientist worth a milligram of shit would tell you that there is a material risk of transmitting deadly pathogens to this particular tribe via material personal contact by outsiders.  Pretending otherwise is unbecoming.  Willful ignorance doesn't change the truth.

[gsoda3 3,187]

8 minutes ago, 1978horn said:

What about "obey the law of the land"  The law was to stay 5 miles away from the island. 

I know missionaries that lie about why they going to countries so that they can get in.   If you lie that is a sin as well.  It seems that missionaries like to justify their sin because it is for the cause.  But then again they can say forgive me and then they are good to go.

you can break the laws of a government but you can only sin against God.  

 

it's sad and at the same time interesting seeing so many of you denying God exists and irreverently misinterpreting and using the Scriptures to your end, but then claiming knowledge over things you not only reject but have no clue about.  

[gsoda3 3,187]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummmm.  That WAS the personal encounter to which I was referring.  So, yeah, other than the evidence that proves my point, there's no evidence.

Come on, man.  Stop.  The phenomenon of isolated tribes being vulnerable to infection by modern diseases is incredibly well-documented.  The phenomenon of THIS tribe, when exposed to material contact with outsiders, having members die of disease, is SPECIFICALLY documented.

Every scientist worth a milligram of shit would tell you that there is a material risk of transmitting deadly pathogens to this particular tribe via material personal contact by outsiders.  Pretending otherwise is unbecoming.  Willful ignorance doesn't change the truth.

of course there's a risk.  there's always a risk.  you have the same risk sending your kids to school.  what you're not hearing is the risk isn't as high in 2018 as it was in 1880.  the risk of your kids getting measles isn't as high in 2018 as it was in 1880 either.  but there's still a risk.  people who despise Christians and Christ are using this as an argument, and it's an argument that doesn't carry as much weight as they think it does.  but you as a professed Christian are latching on to it and doubling down by attacking Christians who disagree.  that's not how we're called to interact.  

[1978horn 864]

5 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

you can break the laws of a government but you can only sin against God.  

 

it's sad and at the same time interesting seeing so many of you denying God exists and irreverently misinterpreting and using the Scriptures to your end, but then claiming knowledge over things you not only reject but have no clue about.  

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ² Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Looks like you are sinning against God to me if you aren't following the law of the land.

I'm not denying the existence of God.  I just don't use him as a crutch to justify my actions.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummmm.  That WAS the personal encounter to which I was referring.  So, yeah, other than the evidence that proves my point, there's no evidence.

Come on, man.  Stop.  The phenomenon of isolated tribes being vulnerable to infection by modern diseases is incredibly well-documented.  The phenomenon of THIS tribe, when exposed to material contact with outsiders, having members die of disease, is SPECIFICALLY documented.

Every scientist worth a milligram of shit would tell you that there is a material risk of transmitting deadly pathogens to this particular tribe via material personal contact by outsiders.  Pretending otherwise is unbecoming.  Willful ignorance doesn't change the truth.

But don't you get it?  They are all gonna die anyway. Right now, they aren't gonna go to heaven. If gsoda goes and converts them, they can die the next day and be "saved."  To him, and the missionary that died, that is what matters.

Some missionaries have enough doubt about the afterlife that they see value in life itself, but this guy didn't. 

[gsoda3 3,187]

Just now, 1978horn said:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ² Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Looks like you are sinning against God to me if you aren't following the law of the land.

I'm not denying the existence of God.  I just don't use him as a crutch to justify my actions.

the pharisees asked Jesus that exact same question.  Jesus said give to the gvt what is the gvt's and give to God what is God's.  God's law trumps gvt's law every time.  Jesus states earthly gvts get their authority from God.  when the gvt told the apostles to stop preaching the gospel the apostles told them that wasn't going to happen.  submission and obedience to the gvt is not because man has authority over us-  it's because God has authority over us and we submit to God.  the only complete submission we give is to God.  

[ztejas 42,744]

https://people.com/human-interest/dead-missionary-friend-says-trip-was-planned-for-years-lost-his-mind/amp/

I think this article was a bet to see how many times the word "allegedly" could be used.

Nothing "allegedly" happened. That mothafucka dead.

[1978horn 864]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

the pharisees asked Jesus that exact same question.  Jesus said give to the gvt what is the gvt's and give to God what is God's.  God's law trumps gvt's law every time.  Jesus states earthly gvts get their authority from God.  when the gvt told the apostles to stop preaching the gospel the apostles told them that wasn't going to happen.  submission and obedience to the gvt is not because man has authority over us-  it's because God has authority over us and we submit to God.  the only complete submission we give is to God.  

So a letter that Paul wrote after Jesus had died and resurrected should be invalid now?  We get to pick and choose what we want in the bible? 

[ztejas 42,744]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummmm.  That WAS the personal encounter to which I was referring.  So, yeah, other than the evidence that proves my point, there's no evidence.

Come on, man.  Stop.  The phenomenon of isolated tribes being vulnerable to infection by modern diseases is incredibly well-documented.  The phenomenon of THIS tribe, when exposed to material contact with outsiders, having members die of disease, is SPECIFICALLY documented.

Every scientist worth a milligram of shit would tell you that there is a material risk of transmitting deadly pathogens to this particular tribe via material personal contact by outsiders.  Pretending otherwise is unbecoming.  Willful ignorance doesn't change the truth.

Seriously. A common cold could wipe them out. Not that I was expecting to find an intelligent discussion on germ theory in here but c'mon now. They are basically a different species when it comes to pathogen resistance and immunity.

[formermav43 4,599]

10 minutes ago, 1978horn said:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ² Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Looks like you are sinning against God to me if you aren't following the law of the land.

I'm not denying the existence of God.  I just don't use him as a crutch to justify my actions.

This is beside the point, but it’s a bad take. There’s a great stream in Scripture that teaches that God, as the one true King of the Universe, is owed primary allegiance. All other allegiances are relativized. So you are to obey the government unless and until it specifically contradicts God’s law-and then you accept the consequences of that, as the government has the right to punish you.

See the multiple incidents in the book of Daniel. Or the early church in Acts, particularly 4 and 5 (“We must obey God rather than men.”) Or consider that the same Paul you’re quoting as if that statement prioritizes the civil authorities over God was killed as an enemy of the state. Or Jesus, for that matter.

*This is not a comment on the actions of the missionary per se, but your general line of argument.

[gsoda3 3,187]

5 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Seriously. A common cold could wipe them out. Not that I was expecting to find an intelligent discussion on germ theory in here but c'mon now. They are basically a different species when it comes to pathogen resistance and immunity.

that has literally never happened.   but don't let it stop your narrative.

10 minutes ago, 1978horn said:

So a letter that Paul wrote after Jesus had died and resurrected should be invalid now?  We get to pick and choose what we want in the bible? 

if you read romans 13 in a vacuum you get the take you came away with.  but if read in context with everything else in the Bible you get the full picture of what it means.  it's not picking and choosing, it's having a deeper understanding of the entire context.  

[1978horn 864]

Just now, formermav43 said:

This is beside the point, but it’s a bad take. There’s a great stream in Scripture that teaches that God, as the one true King of the Universe, is owed primary allegiance. All other allegiances are relativized. So you are to obey the government unless and until it specifically contradicts God’s law-and then you accept the consequences of that, as the government has the right to punish you.

See the multiple incidents in the book of Daniel. Or the early church in Acts, particularly 4 and 5 (“We must obey God rather than men.”) Or consider that the same Paul you’re quoting as if that statement prioritizes the civil authorities over God was killed as an enemy of the state. Or Jesus, for that matter.

*This is not a comment on the actions of the missionary per se, but your general line of argument.

All i'm saying is that time and time again people both Christian and non-christian use scripture to justify actions.  What this guy did was reckless period.  We can pick and chose little scriptures all day long, but in the end if we sin and know that it is sin to accomplish "God's plan" then to me it invalidates everything that is trying to be done.  

I have been on both sides of this argument and lied to get into a country for a mission.  Yes, I was young and arrogant and regret my decision to deceive authorities on why I was traveling. 

[52-80 18,962]

25 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

of course there's a risk.  there's always a risk.  you have the same risk sending your kids to school.  what you're not hearing is the risk isn't as high in 2018 as it was in 1880.  the risk of your kids getting measles isn't as high in 2018 as it was in 1880 either.  but there's still a risk.  people who despise Christians and Christ are using this as an argument, and it's an argument that doesn't carry as much weight as they think it does.  but you as a professed Christian are latching on to it and doubling down by attacking Christians who disagree.  that's not how we're called to interact.  

I'm guessing your kids have vaccination, resistance, immunity, and access to medical care at a different level to those of the sentinelse....who have been living in pathologic isolation PREdating 1880.....

[1978horn 864]

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

that has literally never happened.   but don't let it stop your narrative.

if you read romans 13 in a vacuum you get the take you came away with.  but if read in context with everything else in the Bible you get the full picture of what it means.  it's not picking and choosing, it's having a deeper understanding of the entire context.  

It's always the full context, until it is time to sin for God and then it is ok

[gsoda3 3,187]

8 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Or consider that the same Paul you’re quoting as if that statement prioritizes the civil authorities over God was killed as an enemy of the state. Or Jesus, for that matter.

and lest we forget, paul himself defied the gvt's orders to stop preaching the name of Jesus under the pain of death.  

[gsoda3 3,187]

1 minute ago, 1978horn said:

It's always the full context, until it is time to sin for God and then it is ok

like i said, you can't sin against a government.  you can only sin against God.  you can't sin FOR God.  that shows a misunderstanding of 1.)  what sin is and 2.) what obedience to God entails and 3.)  who your master is.

[formermav43 4,599]

3 minutes ago, 1978horn said:

All i'm saying is that time and time again people both Christian and non-christian use scripture to justify actions.  What this guy did was reckless period.  We can pick and chose little scriptures all day long, but in the end if we sin and know that it is sin to accomplish "God's plan" then to me it invalidates everything that is trying to be done.  

I have been on both sides of this argument and lied to get into a country for a mission.  Yes, I was young and arrogant and regret my decision to deceive authorities on why I was traveling. 

That’s not picking and choosing. It’s reading Romans 13 in the context of all Scripture. 

For the record, I don’t think you should have lied to the authorities either.

(And, again, I’m just addressing your argument, not endorsing this guy.)

Edited November 30, 2018 by formermav43

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

Some estimates say 90% of the native Americans were killed by diseases brought over from the old world. So yeah, it’s a definite possibility. Goddamn get the fuck out. Don’t try to claim science when you are one of those fools who believes Jonas lives inside a whale for 3 days.

[ztejas 42,744]

11 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

that has literally never happened.   but don't let it stop your narrative.

Is this the East India Trading Company I'm talking to? You aren't handing out smallpox blankets are you? Do I need to submit an anonymous tip?

['stache 21,489]

47 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

you can break the laws of a government but you can only sin against God.  

 

it's sad and at the same time interesting seeing so many of you denying God exists and irreverently misinterpreting and using the Scriptures to your end, but then claiming knowledge over things you not only reject but have no clue about.  

Can't fully respond without going full cloak room. But lets just say that religious conservatives are extraordinarily hypocritical on this point when it comes to desperate people at our southern border.

[gsoda3 3,187]

5 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Is this the East India Trading Company I'm talking to? You aren't handing out smallpox blankets are you? Do I need to submit an anonymous tip?

cold.. smallpox... VD... all the same.  the natives weren't wiped out by the cold.  

 

we have treatments for these diseases now, btw.  remote tribes who've come into contact with the rest of civilzation in the past 50 years HAVE contracted these diseases and none have died at a higher rate than the rest of the world.  why?  b/c we can treat them and we do.  

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Can't fully respond without going full cloak room. But lets just say that religious conservatives are extraordinarily hypocritical on this point when it comes to desperate people at our southern border.

unfortunately i agree.  

[conVINCEd 21,468]

Man, I thought I had some religious whackjobs in my family.  They seem perfectly normal after reading gsoda’s point of view.

[ztejas 42,744]

 

[Brisketexan 103,143]

6 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

remote tribes who've come into contact with the rest of civilzation in the past 50 years HAVE contracted these diseases and none have died at a higher rate than the rest of the world. 

They HAVE died of those diseases at a higher rate than they would have . . . if they hadn't been exposed to them in the first place.

Holy shit, the rationalization you have to undertake to justify killing in the name of God.  Disgusting and sad.

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

Too bad we don’t have a cure for crazy selfish prideful dickhead Christians who stick their noses in other people’s business who have told everyone emphatically”leave us the fuck alone”. Oh wait, yeah there is, a bunch of arrows. Get well, get well soon, we want you to get well!

What we don’t have a cure for is syphilis simplex okie which we know he had after studying in that fucking state.

[Huckleberry 32,142]

Since you seem to know something, I'm curious about how he "studied" them. My impression is that any serious published material or credible expert that one could consult regarding the Sentinelese indicates loudly and clearly that they do not wish to be contacted by modern civilization.

As well as the fact that the nearest tribes had been devastated by disease upon close contact.

[gsoda3 3,187]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They HAVE died of those diseases at a higher rate than they would have . . . if they hadn't been exposed to them in the first place.

Holy shit, the rationalization you have to undertake to justify killing in the name of God.  Disgusting and sad.

you're concerned with them catching a virus and dying from it.  i'm concerned with them not hearing the gospel and dying a second death from it.  Jesus definitively spoke, lived, and died showing which one was more important.  

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

you're concerned with them catching a virus and dying from it.  i'm concerned with them not hearing the gospel and dying a second death from it.  Jesus definitively spoke, lived, and died showing which one was more important.  

You are a dickhead.

[Brisketexan 103,143]

Just now, gsoda3 said:

you're concerned with them catching a virus and dying from it.  i'm concerned with them not hearing the gospel and dying a second death from it.  Jesus definitively spoke, lived, and died showing which one was more important.  

Got it.  And I'm glad that you have admitted the hierarchy here.  Because saving their souls is the MOST important thing, then taking their lives necessarily falls below that, and is permissible.  Whether it's one life, or all of them, it's still not as important as saving their souls.  Saving their souls is more important - any and all costs are justified.

That thinking is exactly how millions of indigenous people were slaughtered -- by blade, bullet, beating, and disease -- over the past few centuries.  How wonderful it is to see that thinking is still alive and well.