Missionary killed by Primitive tribe in India

[dogtana]

Since it is known history that in 1879 an elderly couple infected islanders with a disease, it is quite possible they see outsiders as a threat ever since that happened.

They might have legends and stories about it. They do not know about ouside world, its laws and its morals. They do not know that Spendulus will strongly condemn their act online.

All they might have seen was another threat coming from the outside that might make their tribe sick when they are generally always in excellent health and thrive.

I am sorry about the missionary's death, but this is like taking your helmet off in outer space.

[JSRAW]

According to his journal and emails, it's very clear that he was on a suicide mission due to his religious beliefs.

can he be called a radical?
in some cases Muslim suicide bombings say that the person who blew himself up with the bomb was radical
but, that way can the missionary be said to be radical because he wants to die because of religious beliefs?

If radical means only Muslim suicide bomber then no he's not radical. but that's not the case here because he was too brainwashed by one missionary group named "All nation"

You might wanna check this out
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article222250020.html

And, as af_newbie pointed out and summarized well

"Christian brainwashing at its best"

If you look at the bigger picture, then both are radical but with a very different approach. One group want to establish Caliphate rule in the world with violence, and other groups want to develop a kingdom of Jesus in the world with Money and to exploit the misery of helpless people. Both have a superiority complex.

One holds guns along with the holy book and committed to destroying civilization and the second group with a Holy Book encourages to kill a soul/belief system of other society/individual and thousands of years of culture. which one is more dangerous its another long debate.

https://www.opindia.com/2015/04/when-nepal-was-groaning-in-earthquake-christian-missionaries-were-shamelessly-selling-jesus/
https://www.opindia.com/2018/08/missionary-bigotry-of-targeting-vulnerable-people-during-calamities-must-be-called-out/

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/aug/15/they-use-money-to-promote-christianity-nepal-battle-for-souls

Both ideologies ( and its right for all doctrine to some extent be it political, religious, atheist, culture, etc.) failed to understand that the world is beautiful only because of our differences, and we all are very different from each other in terms of religion, faith, culture, color, race, etc and we should embrace our differences.

If someone wants to destroy the following difference and paint all humanity in a single stroke with their ideology, then they are dangerous to the world and we can at least try to maintain the balance.

[Spendulus]

No hate here, buddy. Just pointing out the obvious attempts to construct moral justifications for murder of people of one particular style of religion, eg, Christians, in this thread.....

... the knuckle-dragging moronic posters here who defend and condone this murder have no facts.

It wasn't murder. The only fact we can accept is that John ended up dead because he wasn't supposed to be there..Just like people aren't supposed to fall into tiger cages and Moms aren't supposed to let toddlers wander off into Gorilla enclosures.

There can be no judgement on whether it was right/ wrong for the sentinelese to kill him. These people fire off arrows as a force of habit (Look at the orange undies guys aiming his bow at a fucking helicopter!!). It shouldn't be viewed as anti-christian to say that he died for the wrong reasons. It also shouldn't be viewed as the Sentinelese' fault to have killed him, which seemed to be the case from your initial replies.
  

Murder wasn't murder. Nobody caused it. Force of habit of firing arrows killed him but that's nobody's fault.

Interesting ideas there. But you are wrong.

There can be no judgement in the complete absence of facts, but it's certainly possible to envision scenarios and assign judgement to those. That's the essence of judging or determining things.

But this is a thread where liberals are condoning the murder of a guy because he had a history of behavior objectionable to them. And it's right out in the open.

[Flying Hellfish]

Murder wasn't murder. Nobody caused it.

Interesting ideas there.

It may have been considered an act of war by the islanders when someone show's up on their island with magic unknown weapons, physical and biological (remember the morons that killed a bunch of them 150 years ago just by showing up on the island and NOT being killed right away...)  They almost surely have no way of understanding let alone quarantining, diagnosing, treating and generally dealing with biological dangers. 

Seeing as we have no way of knowing anything they do, say or think, they have no idea of what we do, say or think, they clearly do not want us there, they do not want to be with us or attempt to interact with us in any way shape or form (on or off the island) it seems ridiculously logical to just leave them alone.

As pointed out many times it isn't the islanders fault the religious cunts brainwashed a poor kid into committing suicide in the name of god.  The people ultimately responsible for this kids death are the people filling his head full of fictional horse shit.

Murder isn't generally viewed the same in a war or threat of war, nor when it's done in self defense and it can be argued they applied the same force defending themselves as was applied by the aggressor seeing as they are at extreme risk from simple contact with outsiders...

Just leave them alone holy shit it literally couldn't be any easier than that!

[suchmoon]

But this is a thread where liberals are condoning the murder of a guy because he had a history of behavior objectionable to them. And it's right out in the open.

Really? It sounds to me like most posters are simply arguing a variation of "stand your ground", nothing to do do with the guy being "objectionable". For all we know he was a really nice person.

[bones261]

But this is a thread where liberals are condoning the murder of a guy because he had a history of behavior objectionable to them. And it's right out in the open.

     Personally, it is clear that John Allen Chau was very devout and realized that he may be martyred. As the article linked in the OP reveals, he was clear that we should not be angry with the people he was trying to spread the message to.

“Please do not be angry at them or at God if I get killed,” he pleaded.

     Now he is a martyr just like the God he is so devout to.

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

Luke 23:34

    We should respect the last wishes of this saint and not be mad at the people that killed him. It is the christian thing to do.

[Spendulus]

.... it isn't the islanders fault the religious cunts brainwashed a poor kid into committing suicide in the name of god.  The people ultimately responsible for this kids death are the people filling his head full of fictional horse shit.....

Absolutely don't let me stop you condoning murder. The arrow by the savage is the fault of the Christian leader!

Your words not mine.

Now I'll be happy to tell you where the religious whack was seriously wrong, if you want to hear.

[ATMD]

Now I'll be happy to tell you where the religious whack was seriously wrong, if you want to hear.

Go ahead, I want to hear it.

[Spendulus]

Now I'll be happy to tell you where the religious whack was seriously wrong, if you want to hear.

Go ahead, I want to hear it.

The guy does not qualify as Christian, because his actions are contrary to basic Christian belief and action patterns.

A Christian would have had the utmost of care and attention to the well being of the targets for conversion, and would have wore full body hazmat suit to protect those he was going to meet. And this guy did know of their lack of immunity to infectious agents he carried from the outside world.

This very lack of attention to their welfare and possibly their very lives disqualifies him from any such designation as "Christian missionary" and certainly makes it impossible to use a term such as "martyr" when referring to him.

Although we don't know what happened on that island, we do know he went in without a hazmat suit, therefore the above is correct.

[ATMD]

Now I'll be happy to tell you where the religious whack was seriously wrong, if you want to hear.

Go ahead, I want to hear it.

The guy does not qualify as Christian, because his actions are contrary to basic Christian belief and action patterns.

A Christian would have had the utmost of care and attention to the well being of the targets for conversion, and would have wore full body hazmat suit to protect those he was going to meet. And this guy did know of their lack of immunity to infectious agents he carried from the outside world.

This very lack of attention to their welfare and possibly their very lives disqualifies him from any such designation as "Christian missionary" and certainly makes it impossible to use a term such as "martyr" when referring to him.

Although we don't know what happened on that island, we do know he went in without a hazmat suit, therefore the above is correct.

Wow, this is very true.

I would still call him a Christian though, just because he believed Jesus is his Savior and he (probably) practiced Jesus' teachings of love and kindness. However, you are right, he was ignorant of the danger he was posing on the Sentinelese.

If he could come back to life, I wonder if he would try communing with the Sentinelese once again.

[Spendulus]

Now I'll be happy to tell you where the religious whack was seriously wrong, if you want to hear.

Go ahead, I want to hear it.

The guy does not qualify as Christian, because his actions are contrary to basic Christian belief and action patterns.

A Christian would have had the utmost of care and attention to the well being of the targets for conversion, and would have wore full body hazmat suit to protect those he was going to meet. And this guy did know of their lack of immunity to infectious agents he carried from the outside world.

This very lack of attention to their welfare and possibly their very lives disqualifies him from any such designation as "Christian missionary" and certainly makes it impossible to use a term such as "martyr" when referring to him.

Although we don't know what happened on that island, we do know he went in without a hazmat suit, therefore the above is correct.

Wow, this is very true.

I would still call him a Christian though, just because he believed Jesus is his Savior and he (probably) practiced Jesus' teachings of love and kindness. However, you are right, he was ignorant of the danger he was posing on the Sentinelese.

If he could come back to life, I wonder if he would try communing with the Sentinelese once again.

Bolded above, I did not say or imply that. Article said he had studied this tribe since he was 18, so he was fully aware of their lack of immunity.

Therefore he willfully ignored the risks. This is similar to an HIV infected person going out and having sex with unprotected partners and not telling them.

That's not the behavior of a Christian, regardless of what he believes in his own head.

And that's my fairly unbiased assessment being an atheist, and having no particular concern one way or the other about these events.

[ATMD]

Bolded above, I did not say or imply that. Article said he had studied this tribe since he was 18, so he was fully aware of their lack of immunity.

Therefore he willfully ignored the risks. This is similar to an HIV infected person going out and having sex with unprotected partners and not telling them.

That's not the behavior of a Christian, regardless of what he believes in his own head.

And that's my fairly unbiased assessment being an atheist, and having no particular concern one way or the other about these events.

My bad.

Your atheistic beliefs are of no concern to me, but your logic is spot on.

[Spendulus]

....
Your atheistic beliefs are of no concern to me, but your logic is spot on.

Logic should be all that matters, but some on this forum consider any defense of a Christian to be reason to attack.

I tried to only deal with knowable facts in this complex matter.

[ATMD]

....
Your atheistic beliefs are of no concern to me, but your logic is spot on.

Logic should be all that matters, but some on this forum consider any defense of a Christian to be reason to attack.

I tried to only deal with knowable facts in this complex matter.

And you dealt with the matter fairly. An atheist defending a Christian, it is impossible to be any fairer.

[LTU_btc]

I saw this news week ago and only now I noticed this thread. I'm actually surprised that such primitive tribes still exist. It's XXI century outside the window, but they are living like people lived thousands years ago without any changes. It's unbelievable how they survived until now.
And that missionary was really stupid. I can't imagine how he expected to turn these people into Christian. As user above said, how he planned to communicate with these people if they don't understand any languages. And it seems that he knew that it's likely that he will be killed because these wild tribes are very cruel.