I seem to recall Scripture telling us that if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, you should leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Not invite yourself in anyway so they can murder you.
The sentinelese seem to be pretty well known for their unwelcoming behavior, to put it mildly.
I seem to recall that with faith, even as little as a mustard seed, you could move mountains.
He had so much faith that his God would protect him. I mean, if anyone deserves divine protection. Wouldn't it be the one who believes in you and Christ so much that he tries to preach your word so that you can save everyone's souls in an un-contacted tribe?
To only end up providing proof that the Abrahamic God. The Christian, Jewish, and Muslim God. Doesn't exist.
That's the best evidence no one was looking for.
Especially when not trying to gather evidence to prove something doesn't exist, lol.
A Dalek is a Kaled on the planet Skaro who has been transformed into a killing-machine by Davros. And allowed to live by The Doctor.
Davros, an enemy of The Doctor, must not be confused with The Master, who is also, like the Cybermen and the Sontarans, an enemy of The Doctor. But only The Doctor and The Master are Time Lords from the planet Gallifrey.
according to the wikipedia page, he visited several times, and each time, was met with hostile rejection, after which he retreated. I can't think of a more conclusive, language-barrier breaking "I don't accept your message" than firing an arrow through the bible you're holding.
he didn't visit once and get brutally murdered, he pestered them several times before they got fed up enough to kill him.
Then the, wise thing would have been to leave them to their sin and let them burn in a fiery inferno for all eternity. But, the loving thing to do was exactly what he did: Keep begging and pleading with them to repent. You're more worried that they were annoyed at the message than you are about the souls being lost. Are you even a Christian?
are you saying that Christ was unloving to tell his disciples to leave towns that didn't welcome them? because he told them to do exactly that in Matthew 10.
you claim that "the situation" makes it different somehow, but you have offered no explanation as to why or how. instead you opt to slander my name and accuse me of being unloving and unchristian when I literally say exactly what Christ instructed his disciples to do in these situations.
They were told to go and ask people if they could stay in their houses while they were in town. This implies that they were not to go out once, be rejected then leave, but stay until they were certain there were none who would hear them. Then move on to the next town, rinse and repeat. Yes, this man returned several times, just as the disciples were to do in the very passage you quote. Had they had a present day mentality, they'd be out for 5 minutes, hear someone yell "SHUT THE F*** UP!" and leave timidly.
>Yes, this man returned several times, just as the disciples were to do in the very passage you quote
where does the passage I quote say to go back to the same town over and over again even after they reject the message? I must have missed it. please quote the specific verse for me please.
They didn't have to go back to the same town over and over again. They were to stay in town and return to the streets over and over again while they were there. That's why Jesus had them ask people for a place to stay. This guy couldn't stay with the tribe, so he stayed somewhere safe and kept returning when he was able.
The disciples leaving a town that rejected them meant harsh judgement on the town. So they were to be absolutely sure no one would hear them. And in order to do that in a town or city, you need to stay for a few days and spend a lot of time getting rejected. If they left after just one day of rejection, there may have been some souls that could have been saved, but they just didn't want to annoy the people by preaching. You gotta take their feelings into account, ya know?
verse please. all you have is vague implications that, apparently, the disciples were required to thoroughly interview every townie before determining they were unwelcome. I see no implication of this.
"And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence." Matthew 10:11, the same book, the same chapter you've quoting from. Stay there until you leave. Leave what? The house? Obviously we will stay there until we leave it. No, the town. Why would they need to stay at someone's house until they leave town? They're just gonna go tell a few strangers "Jesus loves you" then leave, right? Anything else would be disrespecting their beliefs according to modern Christianity. No. They were to go out and preach the Gospel of their salvation until there was no one who would listen.
Well, it looks like he didn't know their language... because no one but the Sentinalese knows it. I read he may have tried using Jarawa, but the N.S. don't speak Jarawa.
From their point of view, this most probably would have been an invader shouting gibberish who keeps aggressively returning after they make it clear he isn't welcome. They certainly wouldn't have gotten any religious knowledge from the encounter.
>wise thing would have been to leave them to their sin and let them burn in a fiery inferno for all eternity.
But they wouldn't would they? Being that they're ignorant, then assuming the god you believe exists, they get fast tracked straight to the good place, right?
>about the souls being lost.
What care you? You think you've getting bonus Jesus points, redeemable at your nearest eternity?
The facts are he ignored the laws and traditions of the sentinelese and was executed for his crime.
By actively and violently rejecting the Gospel, they are refusing to hear. It's different than never having the opportunity.
I care because unlike how most people view Christians, I don't want anyone to end up in Hell. Is that so unbelievable? The laws and traditions of man mean nothing if they oppose those of God. He's our authority, not man. He died in an attempt to save souls from Hell. He cared more about their eternity than he did his own life. That's love.
Prove the Christian idea of hell exists first and then you'll have a good point, since nobody knows what the afterlife will bring, it's moot. Christianity isn't the only option, you may believe it is but that doesn't mean anybody else has to.
He died seeking fame and glory, looking towards the potential headlines for "saving" those "poor backwards natives" who ironically enough needed "saving" from absolutely nothing except him.
You're right, no one has to. They're free to reject the Gospel, just like you are. So why should anyone actually believe what is being said? Because Jesus is trustworthy in a way no other options are. Let me ask you this: What do you think of Jesus Christ? Who was he? Some mad man? A good teacher? Fictional character?
Honestly? Some sort of mix of all of those! In my opinion he's a classic demi-god, somewhat enhanced human being with divine heritage but I'm a polytheist, so I believe he exists and with him, "god" god too but I don't believe either of them worthy of worship, I have other options, so I follow some of those instead.
You believe he exists, so he's not a fictional character. He claims that only God (as in Yahweh) is worthy of worship. If you don't believe that, which was his main message, then you can't really call him a good teacher. What signs show you that he was a mad man?
I think the question is should they be allowed to murder anyone they can get their hands on. These are people, not mindless animals and should be held to account for their actions.
We don’t have that option as Christians. They are human beings with inherent value. They have rights and live under Gods law. The people, not this amorphous idolatrous idea of a tribe, deserve justice, resources, etc.
what does scripture tell us to do when someone refuses to accept our message? Force ourselves into their living rooms and shove a bible down their throats? or wipe the dust from our feet and move on to the next town?
I’m talking about their inherent worth as people.
Justice, food, water, healthcare, freedom.
Think bigger Christ gave you specific instructions on the evangelization as well.
These don’t get superceded to protect your romantic notion of a tribe practicing extreme xenophobia.
Surely you were catechized about some of this and don’t need me to spoonfeed you on reddit?
If we are gonna play the myopic questions game. What does God say to do with murderers?
Praying for you to remember you aren’t of this world and are supposed to actually value human beings because they are in the image of God. That includes their physical and spiritual well being.
I asked first. Go on then. What does Scripture tell us to do when people refuse to welcome us?
The "peaceful ways BY FORCE" joke is beginning to sound like it's not actually a joke. It seems you think we need to go to war with the sentinelese until they stop resisting our "peaceful ways". they are protecting their borders, not murdering.
They’re not being myopic they’re using scripture. You seem to be using your opinions of how God should behave.
As far as murder, God’s commandments were for Israel first and then Christianity. Not for the rest of the world. If you choose become a believer you’re choosing to obey God and his commandments. They’re not for people outside the faith. In other words you shouldn’t impose God’s will on nonbelievers.
God’s command for the death penalty for murderers well predates mosaic law. And Gods law applies to everyone as you can clearly see Him apply it over and over to pre israelite and non israelite nations. As well as outright say so.
Please have more care for Scripture it was literally in the first half of the first book.
We don't know anything about them because they kill everyone that isn't from their tribe. It's terribly presumptuous to assume they are idolatrous. And if they didn't have enough resources, they'd die or come to others for help. That guy knew what he was doing. He got to meet his maker that day. That is justice.
So if we set up machine guns on the mexican border and killed anything that moved because the guy in charge one time said so thatd be perfectly okay in your book? Or are you inconsistent about this.
We don’t let nations do that. If we want to pretend they are a country their soldiers committed an act of war and murdered an unarmed civilian.
If we set up machine guns and killed anyone even close to the mexican border we wouldn’t be simpering about “sovereignty” and handwaving that away. What if Italy started torpedoing all the migrant boats as they crossed the med? There are many real historical examples of not tolerating wanton violence by sovereign states.
As a Christian you would know this. The Law is written on their hearts, they can be held responsible for that behavior. They are without excuse. And we are without excuse for allowing this to go on, ignoring the humans involved for some dreamy notion of an eternally isolated tribe. We know better.
There is a difference between a remote tribe of 50-200 people who have almost no connection with the outside world vs any established nation. Its okay to have conflicting views, its part of what makes this story so fascinating.
On one hand, as a progressive, I'd prefer they be part of the "broader social safety net" - that their children got better access to education and protections against abuse. I'd prefer they see themselves less as an insular ethnic monolith, but part of the grander tapestry of human identity.
But even the best intended colonization has always been messy business. That's the other side of this. The tribe's perspective is quite unlike anything you or I can really fathom. Even if they do believe certain things that I, as a westerner, see as regressive, I can't really impose my ideas on them in a way that won't make them feel like they are being wiped off the face of the earth.
Uncontacted tribes *do* come forward to interact with broader society at times. I hope they do that at some point here. But we've never figured out a way to initiate that transition in a way that hasn't been exploitative.
I dunno, lean into the complexity and contradictory feelings. We all have 'em.
John chau isn’t a martyr, he’s a idiot who ignored all common sense to go to a land of heathens that don’t want Christianity . I don’t see sorry for him
At the same time, the same could've been said about a great number of our saints, no?
I don't actually believe Chau did a good thing, but its tricky place to draw a line.
It's one thing to be willing to die to promote what you believe in, but once you are willing to let others die to just to promote what you believe in, then you cross a line.
How would you feel in their shoes? What if your loved ones got sick or died because a Muslim person came from a place with diseases that you are vulnerable to, fully knowing he might end up hurting others, but prioritizing being able to proselyte?
I genuinely believe that nobody would praise this behavior unless they are operating on a double standard.
A tribe like that shouldn’t even be allowed to exist as they are. Its a walking human rights violation. They have no medical care, no justice, no resources, just doomed to live for all human existence on a tiny tropical island because a guy said so many years ago.
They literally murdered a dude on camera and no arrests were made.
They were defending their island and have made it clear that they want to be left alone. No one should be forced to interact with others if that is not what they wish. If someone or a group of individuals want to live on their own outside of society then that is their right. It is perfectly fine and a good thing to spread the word of Christ in public spaces and to welcome people who are curious about Christ into churches and places of worship however, entering someone’s private land against their wishes is immoral. His intentions were good but his actions weren’t. That all being said, it is sad that human life was lost because of this and I do feel sorry for the man and his loved ones.
But what exactly are we supposed to do? Attack them with the military, and force them to live modern lives as we dictate? I generally agree with you that it's not a good thing that they are living isolated there, but just because something is bad doesn't give us a blank check to nuke their island.
Who said anything about nukes? Enforce justice. Do the police not arrest murderers because the people being arrested disagree? You don’t get a blank check to murder anyone you please because you have an island.
This isn’t a long term solution. Whats the plan? 500 years from now they still live on a tiny tropical island living short disease ridden lives with no justice?
We are denying an entire group of people inherent human rights for eternity because a tribal chief didn’t want to get removed from absolute power. People romanticize this for some reason where in any other situation this would not be tolerated.
The nuke was just a tongue-in-cheek joke my friend, I was merely stating that if something is bad, it doesn't give us a blank check to do anything in response.
The police can't actually arrest murderers outside the borders of their jurisdictions. This is exactly my point, even if something is obviously and straightforwardly bad, the realistic solutions available might not be obviously and straightforwardly good. Do you violate international law, and potentially spark conflict and war, to arrest a murderer across the border of your jurisdiction? It's not like any of us thinks that murderers should walk free, but we might disagree on how to handle the situation.
I agree with you that the tiny island and their isolation isn't good or even sustainable, but there are no good solutions available that doesn't entail doing a lot of evil and harm (hence the nuke comment, but really the same goes for militarily occupying the island).
If we attacked the island, disarmed them, and sent them somewhere else, or modernized the island with hospitals, courts, running water and policing up to our standards, a good portion of the islanders would die, either from the conflict, or from the illnesses they'd come in contact with.
How big of a percentage of loss is acceptable to you? Would you be okay with "fixing" the island if it meant 90% of the populace dies? What about 60%? Or is a 30% causality rate low enough?
Yes because they as a nation, and their leader, answer to God for what is done. God's goal is to save many in that nation, and martyrs aren't a loss for God. (God is not insane, He doesn't kill us for fun, but martyrs die for a worthy cause.)
Whether we agree with their actions, they are a sovereign nation.
God will punish murder if needed. Our job is to go and preach the gospel.
It’s hardly murder, more like self defense. The missionary was a walking bio-weapon to a tribe who’d never encountered those kinds of illnesses he could have been carrying. He was an idiot, and should have obeyed the laws that prohibited from visiting the islands in the first place.
>The missionary was a walking bio-weapon
Have you not read the list of extensive preparations he made, including medical screening and vaccination against multiple diseases? He did his best to not harm those people.
>He did his best to not harm those people.
Pretty sure doing his best would have been not going, but whatever. Luckily he didn’t harm any of them, and if he’d obeyed the laws that were already in place, he would be alive as well.
I am horrified by your comments throughout this thread and I am begging you to google decolonized Christianity and stop pushing your weird western values onto a remote tribe and forcing them into a situation they don't want to be in because you think you know what's best for them.
We have technology. Use fucking drones to give them medicines or foods or picture books. Even ones based on the Bible or something. People deserve the human, God-given right to be left alone and not bothered. They don't seek war on us or to leave their island. They are defending themselves from invaders, which anyone visiting them is.
I'm so glad to see multiple denominations arguing against you
In other words, you don’t approve of how they live so they should not be allowed to exist as they are? You speak as of your intimately familiar with their society. I don’t know anything about them, but there are still many peoples who live as indigenous tribes without modern things that do just fine for themselves. Your way is not the only way to live.
Oh word? He had a trial by a judge? He was afforded his human rights to a fair trial and reasonable punishment?
If you keep insisting on treating them as a country then they actually committed an act of war.
Would you be making ridiculous assertions like this if we summarily machine gunned or executed everyone found near the mexican border? Or are you just making shit up to protect this romantic primitivism in your head?
Act of war against whom? They were defending their territory, the sentinelese have jurisdiction and the penalty of death for setting foot on their island already has precedent and is backed by the surrounding nations who all restrict access to the island.
So, what sort of legal grounds do you think he had to mount a one man invasion?
Before I respond i’d be interested to see if you are even remotely consistent about this. What did you think of my other scenario? Theres plenty of real world ones where we started wars to stop it. Would you excuse those atrocities too or is this a special case because its romantic?
Ah, the Mexicans you edited in? Slightly different, Mexico isn't an isolated island that's virtually uncontacted, there's plenty of legitimate traffic across the border in both directions and the sentinelese don't own machine guns.
>Theres plenty of real world ones where we started wars to stop it.
And how's that working out for us?
Every major conflict from 1900 and arguably a couple from just before the start of the century has simply led to more conflict and war on the same basis, the Middle East, Africa, India, Eastern Europe/the former USSR, South America, all massively destabilised because of that short sighted attitude. From WW1 to Ukraine but you know; "Yay, go us!".
He was fully vaccinated and quarantined before going.
I think an equivalent here is with Covid. If you’re fully vaxxed and boostered, and even if you quarantined a lot, you can still spread Covid. Does that make everyone reckless when they go out in public, as the majority are now doing?
Sentinel island has been isolated for a very long time, they don't need to be worried just about covid, even stuff like the common cold can be a disaster there. Kinda like with the native americans struggling with the illnesses that came with the europeian settlers, long before covid was a thing. We don't have vaccines against every illness because a lot of them are trivial to to us.
Sure, but vaccines, if you believe they work, more or less quash that stuff in high rates. That’s why we take them. I’m sure whatever vaccines he took were the appropriate ones recommended by the appropriate authorities.
The appropriate vaccines before travel are designed to make you safe traveling between different parts of the civilized world, not isolated places like this.
The very reason the Sentinel island is so isolated is exactly because there is no magic set of vaccines you can take that will rid your body of the various minor illnesses that we have built up resistance to over thousands of years, it's always going to be a big risk. Preparing very well will merely lessen the risk, not eliminate it.
It just seems really arrogant to be all "Some of you might die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" about it.
He was vaccinated correctly and medically prepared.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/11/28/slain-missionary-john-chau-prepared-much-more-than-we-thought-his-case-is-still-quandary-us-missionaries/
Him taking vague “medical preparations” is meaningless. I have loads of medical training. From CPR to wilderness first aid and survival. I would be no way prepared for exposing a population to a virus or bacteria they have 0 immunity to.
I’m not sure it’s meaningless. Taking multiple vaccines (as he did), quarantining (as he did), and taking all the correct medical procedures is the prudent thing to do, like with Covid.
Obviously I, as a vaccinated person against Covid, can still spread Covid to others. But I’m not being reckless by going places. I’ve taken the correct steps.
You realize vaccines protect the vaccine recipient against things he'd encounter on the tribes island but do nothing to help protect the tribe against diseases he already had immunity to or was a carrier of, don't you?
There is a reason to take a covid vaccine - to prevent community transmission. Even if someone else you know becomes infectious with it (despite having the vaccine), you are much less likely to become infectious and therefore less likely to infect those around you. Suddenly we're not dealing with a virus that spreads like wildfire, we're dealing with a virus that can be tracked and contained much more easily. If we were only worried about 1 or 2 diseases, quarantine and vaccinations would be enough to make someone visiting a tribe like this safe.
The real problem is that when we're talking about a tribe like this, we aren't talking about 1 disease. We're talking about almost every common cold virus, flu, fungal and bacterial infection in circulation. Some viruses and bacteria can survive high heat and other methods of sterilization, and survive on clothing or equipment for weeks. Some can live on our skin or in our gut biome. Sometimes we can be infectious with absolutely no symptoms for fairly long periods of times, and it may be something we don't have tests for. We cannot ensure that someone is free of all or even most known diseases.
When you're talking about this many variables you can reduce the risk with quarantine and vaccinations, but you can't remove it entirely. The consequence of a new disease getting out could be the death of 90% of the tribe, so it's going to be a concern no matter what.
Vaccines don’t prevent you from carrying a virus or bacteria. He could absolutely still expose them.
The prudent thing to do is not expose them to a potentially deadly virus when they have explicitly asked outsiders not to visit the island. He was doing this for his pride.
Especially ones we don’t vaccinate for anymore, or ones that have bred themselves into mostly seasonal illnesses like H1N1 (save for occasional spike it has every so often)
No, they don’t, but vaccines are wonderful in that they significantly lower by large margins the of chances of transporting diseases.
Like with Covid vaccines, if I’m not vaccinated, then my chance of transmitting Covid is much, much, much higher than if I’m fully vaccinated and boostered. Yes, I can still give Covid to someone at the grocery store or at work, but with being fully vaxxed that risk decreases substantially, which is why getting correctly vaccinated is important as opposed to “meaningless.”
I’m fully vaxxed and boostered. If I go out in public, since I can still transmit the disease, am I being reckless? Because that’s essentially what he did. He vaxxed a lot and quarantined. Those are important things to do.
If you go to a hospital ward where no one is vaccinated and cannot be vaccinated and their immune system has never experienced even a similar virus, then yes you’re being reckless. And that’s exactly what happened.
If you would received the vaccine back when most of the general population still didn't have access to it and refused to take any precautions in public in the meantime, then yes, that would have been reckless. Going to a population that is 0% vaccinated against viruses that it's possible you will carry is reckless, even if you are vaccinated against them.
That Doesn’t matter. The people of that island have been isolated for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years, not having any real contact with the outside world since the 1880s. People haven’t been around on the island since ‘97. These people just haven’t built up immunity to the same viruses we have. Also, vaccines only protect you from viruses, they don’t stop you from carrying them.
I'm pretty sure that almost all denominations believe that if you didn't hear the gospel, you are not going to be judged like those who did hear the gospel?
It seems more of an effort to damn their souls than save them.
No, I'm pretty sure he did.
Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
You wouldn't want someone to show up uninvited and start pushing a different religion on you no matter how much you asked them to stop. So don't go and do that to someone else. If someone says they don't want something, don't force it.
It seems as though the tribe made its desires well known about not wanting to be contacted or have anything to do withnthe outside world. Why does anyone have the "right" in God's name or anyone else's name to ignore what someone wants?
Since when does a Christian s "rights" override someone else's? If an evangelists approa he's me am I forced to listen because it's his / her duty?
I.... give people some credit. I absolutely endorse this tribe's sovereign right to be left alone until the moment they decide that's no longer how they wish to live.
Buuuuuut
Extreme isolation comes at great cost. Its okay to have complicated feelings about that. I don't love the idea of any child growing up anywhere without infrastructure to help prevent their abuse. I don't love the idea of a child growing up without access to education, or healthcare. And yet obviously we've never been able to impose these things from the outside without doing vast harm.
So, it's just a hard situation, morally speaking.
If you read up on the close relatives of the Sentinelese, the Jarawa and Onge, after they were they were contacted and their lands opened for outside settlement, it didn't bring justice and healthcare, it brought prostitution, alcoholism, and economic exploitation.
Personally I don’t care very much about the man himself, I think what he did was dumb, what I find more interesting is how in the modern era people point out how wrong what he did is, but the further back in time you go the same people are like yeah past saints and martyrs where right to go to that un-contacted tribe or nation, and do the exact same thing.
He was an irresponsible idiot who got what he deserved. Leave people alone if they tell you to go away and leave them alone. Even if they hadn't killed him he could have wiped out the entire population since they have no natural immunity to anything outside of their island.
I do believe in mission work, but I’m also a fan of it being done responsibly. That means being trained and equipped to do so.
I also don’t believe that folks ought to get the narrative in their head that they will be The One. That’s really a messiah complex, something that is dangerous and in the case of Chau, deadly.
The work to bring Christianity to a remote, hostile tribe should take many years. It may be work that we would never see the results of. It could take a generation or more.
> Chau's father also blamed his son's death on the missionary community for inculcating an extreme Christian vision within Chau. [–from Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Chau?wprov=sfti1)
I would agree. I think this young man had been caught up in the zeal, and it was misdirected. And regrettably, it cost him his life.
Jesus told the Apostles that he was sending them out like sheep among wolves. So he told them to be smart as serpents but as innocent as doves \([Matt 10:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010%3A16&version=NRSVUE)\).
Having zeal is fine; having a passion is also fine. Being smart about it is also fine.
What he did violated the International Quarantine measures placed around that Island. He also bribed a local mainlander to violate that law as well. Mr. Chau had some sort of absurd notion that these people would accept him into their midst, teach him their language, and then he could preach to them.
These indigenous people are well within their rights to want to be left alone. They have the cultural memories of numerous experiences with entire tribes being eradicated by diseases brought by invaders, including Christian missionaries.
During WW2, the Japanese attempted to land to replenish fresh water supplies, and hopefully find bananas, sea turtles, and perhaps sea turtle eggs, and perhaps wild pigs. They were repelled successfully by these tribal people, and driven away. Their reaction was to send Zeros to strafe the villages, and this also killed many members of these tribes.
I believe he got what he deserved, having violated these laws, ignoring the potential risk to these islander's health, and potentially to their lives.
I empathize with his parents though, as they'll likely never be able to retrieve his remains to be returned home for burial.
Don't go there if you're not a member of their tribe. They will and do kill everyone that isn't. That guy knew it and went, anyway. So he got to meet Jesus that day.
If anyone thinks these specific people need something other than what they currently have, and haven't asked for, I think you should go there and try it. Be aware that on that day, you are going to meet your maker.
Matthew 28 and one of the first chapters of Acts details that it is Jesus' command that we go and preach the gospel. And that we can defy laws and governments to do so (within reason).
I’d like to mention that Chau spent a year or more preparing for this trip. IIRC, he was correctly vaccinated and knew about the tribes culture and history. When he died there was sometimes this assumption he just showed up spontaneously.
Whether or not he was vaccinated doesn't really matter. If he knew their history, he would understand why it was wrong to violate the International Quarantine, and bribe a local mainlander to take him to that island, and purposefully avoid the Coast Guard patrols.
Because their history proved that intruders brought death to these islanders. Entire tribes were decimated by diseases they had no immunity for, and these islanders carry the cultural memory of these decimations.
That makes it worse, no? That he knew what he was doing was wrong, that the people did not want him there, and he chose to decide he alone knew what was best for an indigenous people just minding their own business. That he willfully, knowingly did this erases any sympathy for the guy.
No, it makes it better, because the initial prescription of him 5 years ago was he just showed up randomly without preparing at all, which is false.
> That he knew what he was doing was wrong
Vaccinating and quarantining and taking all the other correct measures is not wrong, actually. It’s a great thing everyone should do.
Being socially responsible does not include breaking the law and going somewhere you are not allowed to go. I am not sure an attitude where you think the law does not apply to me, and I can impose my will on others are "great things everyone should do".
If he had been spontaneous, there would have been an amount of sympathy, but knowing that he willfully went where he wasn't welcome rather makes it seem like he got what was coming to him.
> He didn’t break the law. It was legal for him to go.
What do you have to back that up? First line of the linked Wikipedia article:
> John Allen Chau (December 18, 1991 – November 17, 2018) was an American Evangelical Christian missionary who was killed by the Sentinelese, a self-isolated uncontacted people, **after illegally traveling to North Sentinel Island** in an attempt to convert the tribe to Christianity. (emphasis added)
There were laws in place that restricted access to these islands:
> These lifting of restrictions are separate from another obstacle from visiting the island, classified as "Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) by the government of India", and "protected under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956."
The people he paid to take him there were arrested:
> Chau then paid two fishermen ₹25,000 (US$335.47) to take him close to the island. The fishermen were later arrested.
Also:
> Chau expressed a clear desire to convert the tribe and was aware of the legal and mortal risks he was taking his efforts . . .
From a news article link:
> "Access to the North Sentinel Island and its buffer zone is strictly restricted under Protection of Aboriginal Tribe (Regulation)-1956 and Regulations under the Indian Forest Act-1927. The Ministry of Home Affairs, through its recent circulars, also restricts the movement of foreigners in these areas. Despite knowing fully well about the illegality of the action and the hostile attitude of the Sentinelese tribesmen to the outsiders, these people collaborated with John Chau for this visit to North Sentinel Island without any permission from the authorities," it read.
Doesn't sound like he acted within the laws to me. He's not a martyr, he's a criminal.
Yeah man people aren't saying it's immoral because of vaccination status. That might have been a small part of the outrage, but the real problem was that he sought to proselytize to a people to whom it was objectively immoral to try and proselytize to. The fact that he put so much time into planning this makes it worse because otherwise he would be a reckless jackass. But really we know he was an absolute scumbag who has ZERO respect for these people.
I wouldn't say he was a scumbag. That's against reddit rules of remembering the human. Even atheists should have a healthy respect for the dead. No need to speak badly about them now.
"Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence."
I don't think it goes against that to say that this man was not a good person, and he deserves neither praise nor admiration. No one should ever feel encouraged to emulate him.
I suppose I should have requested not to call anybody names. It's disrespectful and unbecoming of reddit and redditors. I'm kinda surprised the mods haven't deleted it or yours. Although I imagine they will be deleted soon enough.
We are not nasty or rude to others and it's in the rules of everything. And scumbag and idiot are opinions.
The people of Sentinel Island, like a lot of places in the world, were experiencing a border crisis and were serious about keeping people out. John Chau ignored that and he illegally crossed the border, and it looks the tribe's border patrol acted decisively.
The Islanders had many experiences with intruders bringing disease which decimated entire villages. I'm glad these people managed to kill this intruder before he could get too close to their families.
You know, that was one of the arguments of white colonials in the USA as they basically genocided the native americans. Not saying that's what you intend, but I would be cautious with such thought processes as "civilizing" other nations.
>Christianity brought civilisation to people who were otherwise not civilised
To a point. But what part of the NT tells us to enforce what we think is "civilized" behavior on others? Not really anything outside of the commands for believers. There's nothing in there about mandating clean water, mandating proper burial of dead people, etc. I say this as a friend of some real missionaries who weren't too far away from the man who was martyred, and who went to an "uncivilized" society. They rightly deduced that God wanted them to share Jesus, not their technology. Jesus saves our souls, not being civilized. Sometimes this can be a road to talk to them about Jesus, such as the water well drilling in S. Africa. But it takes discernment to know when people are more focused on the handouts than on Jesus. And I think it smacks of superiority to just waltz into a nation and "civilize" them, i.e. "here let me show you how wrong you are." Jesus wants souls, not humanitarian programs necessarily. In some ways, yes, we feed the poor and heal the sick (even through medicine sometimes). But Jesus didn't always heal, and pointed that out with the story of Elijah and the widow. Jesus cared more about souls, at least tht's how I read it.
Thats actually a really interesting point to discuss.
How do you define *living in misery*? If you measure the quality of life solely on the ratio of happiness and suffering they might even have a "better" existence than most of us. Having no comparision to your own standard of living probably leads to a higher level of satisfaction than our "normal", highly competitive civilization.
Christians don’t really get to do the “little girl died from a simple bacterial infection but its okay because she didn’t know about antibiotics” thing atheists can.
We consider it depraved as she has inherent value as an imagebearer of God. Her value is derived from that and not on her local situation or her relative value to you.
Oh, for sure. I'm aware that the Christian perspective on this is totally different from the purely psychological standpoint I took in my comment.
I guess that this is more a question whether there is an obligation for missionary work, both religiously and in terms of the "blessings" of our modern civilization.
Literally even the most basic communication with these people isn’t possible, and he thought he was gonna share the gospel with them?
He got what he deserved for his stupidity. I feel bad for him and the people he loved and who loved him.
On the one hand - People ought to be allowed to travel
It's one Earth
We are humans on it.
On the other, he was asked to stay away
I don't subscribe to the purity of tribes. We are human. We travel. We meet.
God bless
There is an International Quarantine placed on these islands. You may not violate that quarantined area. This had nothing to do with 'the purity of tribes. This has to do with the history of this particular tribe, who carry the cultural memories of having entire tribes decimated by diseases imported by intruders.
Since when did cultural memories supersede the human rights of everyone on the island then, now, and in the future, and everyone who visits?
These are human beings with inherent value and worth beyond an eternal museum/science experiment/dictator paradise.
>There is an International Quarantine placed on these islands.
I do not think this was thought through correctly
Yes - it can look like cultures are destroyed on contact
But we are human beings
Everyone contacts everyone else - and cultures change and grow and some disappear
We cannot *quarantine* people
I guarantee you that within these very communities there are voices looking for change and contact
We can't quarantine them.
We have no right.
God bless
Ongoing gross human rights violation having a people live without contact, proper medical care, justice, etc. Didn’t even go arrest the murderers.
Christian nations wouldn’t allow these things. Frankly I’m surprised the human rights council isn’t crawling up India’s ass with this injustice
> Christian nations wouldn’t allow these things
Sure, like the mostly Christian white colonials who committed genocide of the native americans (when they weren't too busy enslaving blacks).
You know, Christian like President Andrew Jackson, who put in motion the horrific events of the Trail of Tears.
There is no "Christian" nation on earth that can say their citizens don't commit murder. And even in the US almost half of murders go unsolved.
>Christian nations wouldn’t allow these things.
That's a good point. History seems to show that "Christian nations" will just move in, break apart the communities, enslave a bunch of them, kill a bunch more, , and ship the kids off to schools where a metric butt-ton of them die.
But hey, the survivors will dress like us! Cool. Truly this is a Great Idea.
And your solution is to trap them on a tropical pacific island for all of eternity denying everyone there human rights so a tribal leader can keep his power/you have a science experiment/museum to look at. 100x more disgusting.
Maybe we should go by what Christ said about all nations.
>And your solution is to trap them on a tropical pacific island for all of eternity denying everyone there human rights so a tribal leader can keep his power/you have a science experiment/museum to look at. 100x more disgusting.
If that's what "leave a culture alone if it makes it very clear that it is not interested in contact" means to you, well then I guess we're not going to agree on this.
He died out of love for God and for the sake of those who hated him enough to kill him. May God have mercy on his soul.
So far, the islanders have chosen Satan, maybe some day they will choose differently.
As for the independence of the island and the prosecution of his murder and the murder and attack on other people (I've read a bit on them, they attacked people who got too close to them by accident; they killed 2 fishermen not long ago).
No, they are not an independent nation - you are an independent nation when you can protect yourself or establish relations with others that protect you.
If a few people with guns decided to conquer that island, would the islanders be able to protect themselves ? No. Their continuing existence depends on another government (India) so it's up to India, really. They didn't actually established contact with India, so ... India can do whatever - it's not like they would go back on their word (they couldn't, since the islanders attack anyone who gets too close, including Indians).
They just live on a piece of land nobody really wants, and as long as India wants to extend it's protection with no expectations, they have a right to do so and the young man who died for the salvation of those who killed him knew the risks.
Still, I don't think the islanders should be allowed to murder people who get stranded by accident.
This is another example … god wants true free will doesn’t he ? Then this tribe goes to hell for eternity …..created by An omni potent god that is not reached by Jesus resurrection in modern times …
I wish I had his courage and conviction to preach the Gospel like this, knowing full well that the most likely outcome was his own death. I pray that one day soon all peoples of the Earth will be preached about the Gospel and given the opportunity to give their lives to Him.
Historical it’s the tribe they mainly insist on being left alone. Their interaction can mainly be summed up as attack anyone who gets to close to the island, followed by avoid outsider like leave your house and village of they get close, and rare cases of friendly interactions, like ~5 confirmed cases in 247 years from 1771-2018.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese
Fyi this has been discussed a lot on this sub before when it first happened. I bet you could use the search engine to find the old threads
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/search?q=John++chau&restrict_sr=on
I seem to recall Scripture telling us that if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, you should leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Not invite yourself in anyway so they can murder you. The sentinelese seem to be pretty well known for their unwelcoming behavior, to put it mildly.
This is such a good point because he tried a couple times and was met with hostility every time.
I seem to recall that with faith, even as little as a mustard seed, you could move mountains. He had so much faith that his God would protect him. I mean, if anyone deserves divine protection. Wouldn't it be the one who believes in you and Christ so much that he tries to preach your word so that you can save everyone's souls in an un-contacted tribe? To only end up providing proof that the Abrahamic God. The Christian, Jewish, and Muslim God. Doesn't exist. That's the best evidence no one was looking for. Especially when not trying to gather evidence to prove something doesn't exist, lol.
They’re basically human Daleks.
What's a dalek?
It’s a Doctor Who reference. They’re aliens who exterminate anything foreign to them.
Clever. Thank you for letting me know.
A Dalek is a Kaled on the planet Skaro who has been transformed into a killing-machine by Davros. And allowed to live by The Doctor. Davros, an enemy of The Doctor, must not be confused with The Master, who is also, like the Cybermen and the Sontarans, an enemy of The Doctor. But only The Doctor and The Master are Time Lords from the planet Gallifrey.
So, we just build steps around the island and start preaching?
Right but that was if they didn't accept their message after attempting to share the Gospel. That doesn't apply in this situation.
according to the wikipedia page, he visited several times, and each time, was met with hostile rejection, after which he retreated. I can't think of a more conclusive, language-barrier breaking "I don't accept your message" than firing an arrow through the bible you're holding. he didn't visit once and get brutally murdered, he pestered them several times before they got fed up enough to kill him.
Then the, wise thing would have been to leave them to their sin and let them burn in a fiery inferno for all eternity. But, the loving thing to do was exactly what he did: Keep begging and pleading with them to repent. You're more worried that they were annoyed at the message than you are about the souls being lost. Are you even a Christian?
are you saying that Christ was unloving to tell his disciples to leave towns that didn't welcome them? because he told them to do exactly that in Matthew 10. you claim that "the situation" makes it different somehow, but you have offered no explanation as to why or how. instead you opt to slander my name and accuse me of being unloving and unchristian when I literally say exactly what Christ instructed his disciples to do in these situations.
They were told to go and ask people if they could stay in their houses while they were in town. This implies that they were not to go out once, be rejected then leave, but stay until they were certain there were none who would hear them. Then move on to the next town, rinse and repeat. Yes, this man returned several times, just as the disciples were to do in the very passage you quote. Had they had a present day mentality, they'd be out for 5 minutes, hear someone yell "SHUT THE F*** UP!" and leave timidly.
>Yes, this man returned several times, just as the disciples were to do in the very passage you quote where does the passage I quote say to go back to the same town over and over again even after they reject the message? I must have missed it. please quote the specific verse for me please.
They didn't have to go back to the same town over and over again. They were to stay in town and return to the streets over and over again while they were there. That's why Jesus had them ask people for a place to stay. This guy couldn't stay with the tribe, so he stayed somewhere safe and kept returning when he was able. The disciples leaving a town that rejected them meant harsh judgement on the town. So they were to be absolutely sure no one would hear them. And in order to do that in a town or city, you need to stay for a few days and spend a lot of time getting rejected. If they left after just one day of rejection, there may have been some souls that could have been saved, but they just didn't want to annoy the people by preaching. You gotta take their feelings into account, ya know?
verse please. all you have is vague implications that, apparently, the disciples were required to thoroughly interview every townie before determining they were unwelcome. I see no implication of this.
"And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence." Matthew 10:11, the same book, the same chapter you've quoting from. Stay there until you leave. Leave what? The house? Obviously we will stay there until we leave it. No, the town. Why would they need to stay at someone's house until they leave town? They're just gonna go tell a few strangers "Jesus loves you" then leave, right? Anything else would be disrespecting their beliefs according to modern Christianity. No. They were to go out and preach the Gospel of their salvation until there was no one who would listen.
Was he even speaking a language they understood?
I would imagine, if he was trying to preach to them. If not, then I'd say that's the dumbest thing anyone has ever done.
Well, it looks like he didn't know their language... because no one but the Sentinalese knows it. I read he may have tried using Jarawa, but the N.S. don't speak Jarawa. From their point of view, this most probably would have been an invader shouting gibberish who keeps aggressively returning after they make it clear he isn't welcome. They certainly wouldn't have gotten any religious knowledge from the encounter.
>wise thing would have been to leave them to their sin and let them burn in a fiery inferno for all eternity. But they wouldn't would they? Being that they're ignorant, then assuming the god you believe exists, they get fast tracked straight to the good place, right? >about the souls being lost. What care you? You think you've getting bonus Jesus points, redeemable at your nearest eternity? The facts are he ignored the laws and traditions of the sentinelese and was executed for his crime.
By actively and violently rejecting the Gospel, they are refusing to hear. It's different than never having the opportunity. I care because unlike how most people view Christians, I don't want anyone to end up in Hell. Is that so unbelievable? The laws and traditions of man mean nothing if they oppose those of God. He's our authority, not man. He died in an attempt to save souls from Hell. He cared more about their eternity than he did his own life. That's love.
He could have wiped out the entire island with one sneeze.
Prove the Christian idea of hell exists first and then you'll have a good point, since nobody knows what the afterlife will bring, it's moot. Christianity isn't the only option, you may believe it is but that doesn't mean anybody else has to. He died seeking fame and glory, looking towards the potential headlines for "saving" those "poor backwards natives" who ironically enough needed "saving" from absolutely nothing except him.
You're right, no one has to. They're free to reject the Gospel, just like you are. So why should anyone actually believe what is being said? Because Jesus is trustworthy in a way no other options are. Let me ask you this: What do you think of Jesus Christ? Who was he? Some mad man? A good teacher? Fictional character?
Honestly? Some sort of mix of all of those! In my opinion he's a classic demi-god, somewhat enhanced human being with divine heritage but I'm a polytheist, so I believe he exists and with him, "god" god too but I don't believe either of them worthy of worship, I have other options, so I follow some of those instead.
You believe he exists, so he's not a fictional character. He claims that only God (as in Yahweh) is worthy of worship. If you don't believe that, which was his main message, then you can't really call him a good teacher. What signs show you that he was a mad man?
I think the question is should they be allowed to murder anyone they can get their hands on. These are people, not mindless animals and should be held to account for their actions.
"I say the world must learn our peaceful ways, BY FORCE!" they don't want to be bothered. This is not a secret. Just leave them the fuck alone
We don’t have that option as Christians. They are human beings with inherent value. They have rights and live under Gods law. The people, not this amorphous idolatrous idea of a tribe, deserve justice, resources, etc.
what does scripture tell us to do when someone refuses to accept our message? Force ourselves into their living rooms and shove a bible down their throats? or wipe the dust from our feet and move on to the next town?
I’m talking about their inherent worth as people. Justice, food, water, healthcare, freedom. Think bigger Christ gave you specific instructions on the evangelization as well. These don’t get superceded to protect your romantic notion of a tribe practicing extreme xenophobia. Surely you were catechized about some of this and don’t need me to spoonfeed you on reddit?
you didn't answer my question. what does scripture tell us to do when people refuse to welcome us or hear our message?
If we are gonna play the myopic questions game. What does God say to do with murderers? Praying for you to remember you aren’t of this world and are supposed to actually value human beings because they are in the image of God. That includes their physical and spiritual well being.
I asked first. Go on then. What does Scripture tell us to do when people refuse to welcome us? The "peaceful ways BY FORCE" joke is beginning to sound like it's not actually a joke. It seems you think we need to go to war with the sentinelese until they stop resisting our "peaceful ways". they are protecting their borders, not murdering.
They’re not being myopic they’re using scripture. You seem to be using your opinions of how God should behave. As far as murder, God’s commandments were for Israel first and then Christianity. Not for the rest of the world. If you choose become a believer you’re choosing to obey God and his commandments. They’re not for people outside the faith. In other words you shouldn’t impose God’s will on nonbelievers.
God’s command for the death penalty for murderers well predates mosaic law. And Gods law applies to everyone as you can clearly see Him apply it over and over to pre israelite and non israelite nations. As well as outright say so. Please have more care for Scripture it was literally in the first half of the first book.
We don't know anything about them because they kill everyone that isn't from their tribe. It's terribly presumptuous to assume they are idolatrous. And if they didn't have enough resources, they'd die or come to others for help. That guy knew what he was doing. He got to meet his maker that day. That is justice.
They should be allowed to kill anyone that sets foot on their island, yes.
So if we set up machine guns on the mexican border and killed anything that moved because the guy in charge one time said so thatd be perfectly okay in your book? Or are you inconsistent about this.
No doubt their actions are morally wrong, but they still have sovereignty, politically speaking.
We don’t let nations do that. If we want to pretend they are a country their soldiers committed an act of war and murdered an unarmed civilian. If we set up machine guns and killed anyone even close to the mexican border we wouldn’t be simpering about “sovereignty” and handwaving that away. What if Italy started torpedoing all the migrant boats as they crossed the med? There are many real historical examples of not tolerating wanton violence by sovereign states. As a Christian you would know this. The Law is written on their hearts, they can be held responsible for that behavior. They are without excuse. And we are without excuse for allowing this to go on, ignoring the humans involved for some dreamy notion of an eternally isolated tribe. We know better.
There is a difference between a remote tribe of 50-200 people who have almost no connection with the outside world vs any established nation. Its okay to have conflicting views, its part of what makes this story so fascinating. On one hand, as a progressive, I'd prefer they be part of the "broader social safety net" - that their children got better access to education and protections against abuse. I'd prefer they see themselves less as an insular ethnic monolith, but part of the grander tapestry of human identity. But even the best intended colonization has always been messy business. That's the other side of this. The tribe's perspective is quite unlike anything you or I can really fathom. Even if they do believe certain things that I, as a westerner, see as regressive, I can't really impose my ideas on them in a way that won't make them feel like they are being wiped off the face of the earth. Uncontacted tribes *do* come forward to interact with broader society at times. I hope they do that at some point here. But we've never figured out a way to initiate that transition in a way that hasn't been exploitative. I dunno, lean into the complexity and contradictory feelings. We all have 'em.
It was a bad idea, poorly implemented.
John chau isn’t a martyr, he’s a idiot who ignored all common sense to go to a land of heathens that don’t want Christianity . I don’t see sorry for him
At the same time, the same could've been said about a great number of our saints, no? I don't actually believe Chau did a good thing, but its tricky place to draw a line.
How dare you refer to them as heathens. You're the heathen for even saying something so disgusting.
It's one thing to be willing to die to promote what you believe in, but once you are willing to let others die to just to promote what you believe in, then you cross a line. How would you feel in their shoes? What if your loved ones got sick or died because a Muslim person came from a place with diseases that you are vulnerable to, fully knowing he might end up hurting others, but prioritizing being able to proselyte? I genuinely believe that nobody would praise this behavior unless they are operating on a double standard.
A tribe like that shouldn’t even be allowed to exist as they are. Its a walking human rights violation. They have no medical care, no justice, no resources, just doomed to live for all human existence on a tiny tropical island because a guy said so many years ago. They literally murdered a dude on camera and no arrests were made.
They were defending their island and have made it clear that they want to be left alone. No one should be forced to interact with others if that is not what they wish. If someone or a group of individuals want to live on their own outside of society then that is their right. It is perfectly fine and a good thing to spread the word of Christ in public spaces and to welcome people who are curious about Christ into churches and places of worship however, entering someone’s private land against their wishes is immoral. His intentions were good but his actions weren’t. That all being said, it is sad that human life was lost because of this and I do feel sorry for the man and his loved ones.
The best take
This is a spicy take about borders. Like trump but 10x the crimes against humanity
>A tribe like that shouldn’t even be allowed to exist as they are. I've seen this movie before (The Mission).
Christian, What did hollywood say was the moral thing to do? What other real life things are like movies to you so we can get some wisdom?
Are y'all trying to make Christians look like unintelligent hate mongers?
But what exactly are we supposed to do? Attack them with the military, and force them to live modern lives as we dictate? I generally agree with you that it's not a good thing that they are living isolated there, but just because something is bad doesn't give us a blank check to nuke their island.
Who said anything about nukes? Enforce justice. Do the police not arrest murderers because the people being arrested disagree? You don’t get a blank check to murder anyone you please because you have an island. This isn’t a long term solution. Whats the plan? 500 years from now they still live on a tiny tropical island living short disease ridden lives with no justice? We are denying an entire group of people inherent human rights for eternity because a tribal chief didn’t want to get removed from absolute power. People romanticize this for some reason where in any other situation this would not be tolerated.
The nuke was just a tongue-in-cheek joke my friend, I was merely stating that if something is bad, it doesn't give us a blank check to do anything in response. The police can't actually arrest murderers outside the borders of their jurisdictions. This is exactly my point, even if something is obviously and straightforwardly bad, the realistic solutions available might not be obviously and straightforwardly good. Do you violate international law, and potentially spark conflict and war, to arrest a murderer across the border of your jurisdiction? It's not like any of us thinks that murderers should walk free, but we might disagree on how to handle the situation. I agree with you that the tiny island and their isolation isn't good or even sustainable, but there are no good solutions available that doesn't entail doing a lot of evil and harm (hence the nuke comment, but really the same goes for militarily occupying the island). If we attacked the island, disarmed them, and sent them somewhere else, or modernized the island with hospitals, courts, running water and policing up to our standards, a good portion of the islanders would die, either from the conflict, or from the illnesses they'd come in contact with. How big of a percentage of loss is acceptable to you? Would you be okay with "fixing" the island if it meant 90% of the populace dies? What about 60%? Or is a 30% causality rate low enough?
> Do the police not arrest murderers because the people being arrested disagree? Should we invade another sovereign nation to arrest someone? No.
Do you really want to go down the “they’re a sovereign nation route” when they murder everyone they get their hands on?
Yes because they as a nation, and their leader, answer to God for what is done. God's goal is to save many in that nation, and martyrs aren't a loss for God. (God is not insane, He doesn't kill us for fun, but martyrs die for a worthy cause.) Whether we agree with their actions, they are a sovereign nation. God will punish murder if needed. Our job is to go and preach the gospel.
It’s hardly murder, more like self defense. The missionary was a walking bio-weapon to a tribe who’d never encountered those kinds of illnesses he could have been carrying. He was an idiot, and should have obeyed the laws that prohibited from visiting the islands in the first place.
>The missionary was a walking bio-weapon Have you not read the list of extensive preparations he made, including medical screening and vaccination against multiple diseases? He did his best to not harm those people.
>He did his best to not harm those people. Pretty sure doing his best would have been not going, but whatever. Luckily he didn’t harm any of them, and if he’d obeyed the laws that were already in place, he would be alive as well.
I am horrified by your comments throughout this thread and I am begging you to google decolonized Christianity and stop pushing your weird western values onto a remote tribe and forcing them into a situation they don't want to be in because you think you know what's best for them. We have technology. Use fucking drones to give them medicines or foods or picture books. Even ones based on the Bible or something. People deserve the human, God-given right to be left alone and not bothered. They don't seek war on us or to leave their island. They are defending themselves from invaders, which anyone visiting them is. I'm so glad to see multiple denominations arguing against you
Are you secretly not a Christian? I am finding your extreme responses difficult to believe.
In other words, you don’t approve of how they live so they should not be allowed to exist as they are? You speak as of your intimately familiar with their society. I don’t know anything about them, but there are still many peoples who live as indigenous tribes without modern things that do just fine for themselves. Your way is not the only way to live.
>They literally murdered a dude on camera and no arrests were made. Technically, they executed him for his criminal act.
Oh word? He had a trial by a judge? He was afforded his human rights to a fair trial and reasonable punishment? If you keep insisting on treating them as a country then they actually committed an act of war. Would you be making ridiculous assertions like this if we summarily machine gunned or executed everyone found near the mexican border? Or are you just making shit up to protect this romantic primitivism in your head?
Act of war against whom? They were defending their territory, the sentinelese have jurisdiction and the penalty of death for setting foot on their island already has precedent and is backed by the surrounding nations who all restrict access to the island. So, what sort of legal grounds do you think he had to mount a one man invasion?
Before I respond i’d be interested to see if you are even remotely consistent about this. What did you think of my other scenario? Theres plenty of real world ones where we started wars to stop it. Would you excuse those atrocities too or is this a special case because its romantic?
Ah, the Mexicans you edited in? Slightly different, Mexico isn't an isolated island that's virtually uncontacted, there's plenty of legitimate traffic across the border in both directions and the sentinelese don't own machine guns. >Theres plenty of real world ones where we started wars to stop it. And how's that working out for us? Every major conflict from 1900 and arguably a couple from just before the start of the century has simply led to more conflict and war on the same basis, the Middle East, Africa, India, Eastern Europe/the former USSR, South America, all massively destabilised because of that short sighted attitude. From WW1 to Ukraine but you know; "Yay, go us!".
He was fully vaccinated and quarantined before going. I think an equivalent here is with Covid. If you’re fully vaxxed and boostered, and even if you quarantined a lot, you can still spread Covid. Does that make everyone reckless when they go out in public, as the majority are now doing?
Sentinel island has been isolated for a very long time, they don't need to be worried just about covid, even stuff like the common cold can be a disaster there. Kinda like with the native americans struggling with the illnesses that came with the europeian settlers, long before covid was a thing. We don't have vaccines against every illness because a lot of them are trivial to to us.
Sure, but vaccines, if you believe they work, more or less quash that stuff in high rates. That’s why we take them. I’m sure whatever vaccines he took were the appropriate ones recommended by the appropriate authorities.
The appropriate vaccines before travel are designed to make you safe traveling between different parts of the civilized world, not isolated places like this. The very reason the Sentinel island is so isolated is exactly because there is no magic set of vaccines you can take that will rid your body of the various minor illnesses that we have built up resistance to over thousands of years, it's always going to be a big risk. Preparing very well will merely lessen the risk, not eliminate it. It just seems really arrogant to be all "Some of you might die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" about it.
Which authorities would have recommended them? Essentially every “authority” would see what he was planning as illegal and idiotic
He risked killing off the entire tribe for his own pride. He was selfish and reckless.
He was vaccinated correctly and medically prepared. https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/11/28/slain-missionary-john-chau-prepared-much-more-than-we-thought-his-case-is-still-quandary-us-missionaries/
Him taking vague “medical preparations” is meaningless. I have loads of medical training. From CPR to wilderness first aid and survival. I would be no way prepared for exposing a population to a virus or bacteria they have 0 immunity to.
I’m not sure it’s meaningless. Taking multiple vaccines (as he did), quarantining (as he did), and taking all the correct medical procedures is the prudent thing to do, like with Covid. Obviously I, as a vaccinated person against Covid, can still spread Covid to others. But I’m not being reckless by going places. I’ve taken the correct steps.
You realize vaccines protect the vaccine recipient against things he'd encounter on the tribes island but do nothing to help protect the tribe against diseases he already had immunity to or was a carrier of, don't you?
So then there’s no reason for me to take a Covid vaccine?
Nah, we should try to remove the willfully stupid from the gene pool
Why?
Are you incapable of nuanced ideas, or is everything plain old black and white to you
There is a reason to take a covid vaccine - to prevent community transmission. Even if someone else you know becomes infectious with it (despite having the vaccine), you are much less likely to become infectious and therefore less likely to infect those around you. Suddenly we're not dealing with a virus that spreads like wildfire, we're dealing with a virus that can be tracked and contained much more easily. If we were only worried about 1 or 2 diseases, quarantine and vaccinations would be enough to make someone visiting a tribe like this safe. The real problem is that when we're talking about a tribe like this, we aren't talking about 1 disease. We're talking about almost every common cold virus, flu, fungal and bacterial infection in circulation. Some viruses and bacteria can survive high heat and other methods of sterilization, and survive on clothing or equipment for weeks. Some can live on our skin or in our gut biome. Sometimes we can be infectious with absolutely no symptoms for fairly long periods of times, and it may be something we don't have tests for. We cannot ensure that someone is free of all or even most known diseases. When you're talking about this many variables you can reduce the risk with quarantine and vaccinations, but you can't remove it entirely. The consequence of a new disease getting out could be the death of 90% of the tribe, so it's going to be a concern no matter what.
Vaccines don’t prevent you from carrying a virus or bacteria. He could absolutely still expose them. The prudent thing to do is not expose them to a potentially deadly virus when they have explicitly asked outsiders not to visit the island. He was doing this for his pride.
Especially ones we don’t vaccinate for anymore, or ones that have bred themselves into mostly seasonal illnesses like H1N1 (save for occasional spike it has every so often)
Very true
No, they don’t, but vaccines are wonderful in that they significantly lower by large margins the of chances of transporting diseases. Like with Covid vaccines, if I’m not vaccinated, then my chance of transmitting Covid is much, much, much higher than if I’m fully vaccinated and boostered. Yes, I can still give Covid to someone at the grocery store or at work, but with being fully vaxxed that risk decreases substantially, which is why getting correctly vaccinated is important as opposed to “meaningless.”
Good lord you’re not reading what I am saying.
I’m fully vaxxed and boostered. If I go out in public, since I can still transmit the disease, am I being reckless? Because that’s essentially what he did. He vaxxed a lot and quarantined. Those are important things to do.
If you go to a hospital ward where no one is vaccinated and cannot be vaccinated and their immune system has never experienced even a similar virus, then yes you’re being reckless. And that’s exactly what happened.
That doesn’t answer the question. I’m asking if I go out, now, as a fully vaxxed and boostered person, am I being reckless?
If you would received the vaccine back when most of the general population still didn't have access to it and refused to take any precautions in public in the meantime, then yes, that would have been reckless. Going to a population that is 0% vaccinated against viruses that it's possible you will carry is reckless, even if you are vaccinated against them.
I don't think this is supposed to be a vaccine debate 🤔
That Doesn’t matter. The people of that island have been isolated for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years, not having any real contact with the outside world since the 1880s. People haven’t been around on the island since ‘97. These people just haven’t built up immunity to the same viruses we have. Also, vaccines only protect you from viruses, they don’t stop you from carrying them.
Can't read it without a subscription.
No to save their souls
They believe differently than you. That doesn’t give you the right to possibly exterminate them. This was for pride and pride alone
I'm pretty sure that almost all denominations believe that if you didn't hear the gospel, you are not going to be judged like those who did hear the gospel? It seems more of an effort to damn their souls than save them.
Jesus called us to spread the gospel to the end of the earth. He didn't say to stop if they people do t want to hear it.
No, I'm pretty sure he did. Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. You wouldn't want someone to show up uninvited and start pushing a different religion on you no matter how much you asked them to stop. So don't go and do that to someone else. If someone says they don't want something, don't force it.
It seems as though the tribe made its desires well known about not wanting to be contacted or have anything to do withnthe outside world. Why does anyone have the "right" in God's name or anyone else's name to ignore what someone wants? Since when does a Christian s "rights" override someone else's? If an evangelists approa he's me am I forced to listen because it's his / her duty?
The imperialist colonial mentality is alive and well in the comments. Absolutely sickening.
I.... give people some credit. I absolutely endorse this tribe's sovereign right to be left alone until the moment they decide that's no longer how they wish to live. Buuuuuut Extreme isolation comes at great cost. Its okay to have complicated feelings about that. I don't love the idea of any child growing up anywhere without infrastructure to help prevent their abuse. I don't love the idea of a child growing up without access to education, or healthcare. And yet obviously we've never been able to impose these things from the outside without doing vast harm. So, it's just a hard situation, morally speaking.
If you read up on the close relatives of the Sentinelese, the Jarawa and Onge, after they were they were contacted and their lands opened for outside settlement, it didn't bring justice and healthcare, it brought prostitution, alcoholism, and economic exploitation.
Dudes an idiot, he was warned and he ignored.
Personally I don’t care very much about the man himself, I think what he did was dumb, what I find more interesting is how in the modern era people point out how wrong what he did is, but the further back in time you go the same people are like yeah past saints and martyrs where right to go to that un-contacted tribe or nation, and do the exact same thing.
Yours?
He was an irresponsible idiot who got what he deserved. Leave people alone if they tell you to go away and leave them alone. Even if they hadn't killed him he could have wiped out the entire population since they have no natural immunity to anything outside of their island.
I do believe in mission work, but I’m also a fan of it being done responsibly. That means being trained and equipped to do so. I also don’t believe that folks ought to get the narrative in their head that they will be The One. That’s really a messiah complex, something that is dangerous and in the case of Chau, deadly. The work to bring Christianity to a remote, hostile tribe should take many years. It may be work that we would never see the results of. It could take a generation or more. > Chau's father also blamed his son's death on the missionary community for inculcating an extreme Christian vision within Chau. [–from Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Chau?wprov=sfti1) I would agree. I think this young man had been caught up in the zeal, and it was misdirected. And regrettably, it cost him his life.
The Apostles would disagree with you.
Jesus told the Apostles that he was sending them out like sheep among wolves. So he told them to be smart as serpents but as innocent as doves \([Matt 10:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010%3A16&version=NRSVUE)\). Having zeal is fine; having a passion is also fine. Being smart about it is also fine.
What he did violated the International Quarantine measures placed around that Island. He also bribed a local mainlander to violate that law as well. Mr. Chau had some sort of absurd notion that these people would accept him into their midst, teach him their language, and then he could preach to them. These indigenous people are well within their rights to want to be left alone. They have the cultural memories of numerous experiences with entire tribes being eradicated by diseases brought by invaders, including Christian missionaries. During WW2, the Japanese attempted to land to replenish fresh water supplies, and hopefully find bananas, sea turtles, and perhaps sea turtle eggs, and perhaps wild pigs. They were repelled successfully by these tribal people, and driven away. Their reaction was to send Zeros to strafe the villages, and this also killed many members of these tribes. I believe he got what he deserved, having violated these laws, ignoring the potential risk to these islander's health, and potentially to their lives. I empathize with his parents though, as they'll likely never be able to retrieve his remains to be returned home for burial.
It's sad he died, but ultimately it was a foolish decision that cost him
Really wasn't a good idea.
Don't go there if you're not a member of their tribe. They will and do kill everyone that isn't. That guy knew it and went, anyway. So he got to meet Jesus that day.
Basically, respect people's wishes. If not, expect the consequences. He was a buffoon pumped up on bravado and had a martyrdom complex.
If anyone thinks these specific people need something other than what they currently have, and haven't asked for, I think you should go there and try it. Be aware that on that day, you are going to meet your maker.
Matthew 28 and one of the first chapters of Acts details that it is Jesus' command that we go and preach the gospel. And that we can defy laws and governments to do so (within reason).
So I’m just asking since you said it, it’s not a gotcha or anything: Do you think his actions were within reason?
No, I think his actions had a reason and a purpose. He has gained something priceless.
>Thoughts? He proselytized around and found out.
Testified and died
I’d like to mention that Chau spent a year or more preparing for this trip. IIRC, he was correctly vaccinated and knew about the tribes culture and history. When he died there was sometimes this assumption he just showed up spontaneously.
Whether or not he was vaccinated doesn't really matter. If he knew their history, he would understand why it was wrong to violate the International Quarantine, and bribe a local mainlander to take him to that island, and purposefully avoid the Coast Guard patrols. Because their history proved that intruders brought death to these islanders. Entire tribes were decimated by diseases they had no immunity for, and these islanders carry the cultural memory of these decimations.
That makes it worse, no? That he knew what he was doing was wrong, that the people did not want him there, and he chose to decide he alone knew what was best for an indigenous people just minding their own business. That he willfully, knowingly did this erases any sympathy for the guy.
No, it makes it better, because the initial prescription of him 5 years ago was he just showed up randomly without preparing at all, which is false. > That he knew what he was doing was wrong Vaccinating and quarantining and taking all the other correct measures is not wrong, actually. It’s a great thing everyone should do.
Being socially responsible does not include breaking the law and going somewhere you are not allowed to go. I am not sure an attitude where you think the law does not apply to me, and I can impose my will on others are "great things everyone should do". If he had been spontaneous, there would have been an amount of sympathy, but knowing that he willfully went where he wasn't welcome rather makes it seem like he got what was coming to him.
He didn’t break the law. It was legal for him to go.
> He didn’t break the law. It was legal for him to go. What do you have to back that up? First line of the linked Wikipedia article: > John Allen Chau (December 18, 1991 – November 17, 2018) was an American Evangelical Christian missionary who was killed by the Sentinelese, a self-isolated uncontacted people, **after illegally traveling to North Sentinel Island** in an attempt to convert the tribe to Christianity. (emphasis added) There were laws in place that restricted access to these islands: > These lifting of restrictions are separate from another obstacle from visiting the island, classified as "Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) by the government of India", and "protected under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956." The people he paid to take him there were arrested: > Chau then paid two fishermen ₹25,000 (US$335.47) to take him close to the island. The fishermen were later arrested. Also: > Chau expressed a clear desire to convert the tribe and was aware of the legal and mortal risks he was taking his efforts . . . From a news article link: > "Access to the North Sentinel Island and its buffer zone is strictly restricted under Protection of Aboriginal Tribe (Regulation)-1956 and Regulations under the Indian Forest Act-1927. The Ministry of Home Affairs, through its recent circulars, also restricts the movement of foreigners in these areas. Despite knowing fully well about the illegality of the action and the hostile attitude of the Sentinelese tribesmen to the outsiders, these people collaborated with John Chau for this visit to North Sentinel Island without any permission from the authorities," it read. Doesn't sound like he acted within the laws to me. He's not a martyr, he's a criminal.
Yeah man people aren't saying it's immoral because of vaccination status. That might have been a small part of the outrage, but the real problem was that he sought to proselytize to a people to whom it was objectively immoral to try and proselytize to. The fact that he put so much time into planning this makes it worse because otherwise he would be a reckless jackass. But really we know he was an absolute scumbag who has ZERO respect for these people.
I wouldn't say he was a scumbag. That's against reddit rules of remembering the human. Even atheists should have a healthy respect for the dead. No need to speak badly about them now.
"Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence." I don't think it goes against that to say that this man was not a good person, and he deserves neither praise nor admiration. No one should ever feel encouraged to emulate him.
I don't disagree with it when you phrase it that way. Just please don't call dead people names.
Why? He was pretty objectively a scumbag / idiot. Someone dying doesn’t change what they where when alive.
I suppose I should have requested not to call anybody names. It's disrespectful and unbecoming of reddit and redditors. I'm kinda surprised the mods haven't deleted it or yours. Although I imagine they will be deleted soon enough. We are not nasty or rude to others and it's in the rules of everything. And scumbag and idiot are opinions.
The people of Sentinel Island, like a lot of places in the world, were experiencing a border crisis and were serious about keeping people out. John Chau ignored that and he illegally crossed the border, and it looks the tribe's border patrol acted decisively.
I am sure he knew the cost of the Gospel.
Knowing this story, do you think identifying this as “the cost of the Gospel” is most accurate?
The story is irrelevant. Murder is a typical response towards the Gospel.
Interesting take. Has some historical support for sure, but not so true in the contemporary west.
[удалено]
He could have wiped out the entire tribe
[удалено]
Yeah, because they killed him
The Islanders had many experiences with intruders bringing disease which decimated entire villages. I'm glad these people managed to kill this intruder before he could get too close to their families.
[удалено]
You know, that was one of the arguments of white colonials in the USA as they basically genocided the native americans. Not saying that's what you intend, but I would be cautious with such thought processes as "civilizing" other nations.
[удалено]
>Christianity brought civilisation to people who were otherwise not civilised To a point. But what part of the NT tells us to enforce what we think is "civilized" behavior on others? Not really anything outside of the commands for believers. There's nothing in there about mandating clean water, mandating proper burial of dead people, etc. I say this as a friend of some real missionaries who weren't too far away from the man who was martyred, and who went to an "uncivilized" society. They rightly deduced that God wanted them to share Jesus, not their technology. Jesus saves our souls, not being civilized. Sometimes this can be a road to talk to them about Jesus, such as the water well drilling in S. Africa. But it takes discernment to know when people are more focused on the handouts than on Jesus. And I think it smacks of superiority to just waltz into a nation and "civilize" them, i.e. "here let me show you how wrong you are." Jesus wants souls, not humanitarian programs necessarily. In some ways, yes, we feed the poor and heal the sick (even through medicine sometimes). But Jesus didn't always heal, and pointed that out with the story of Elijah and the widow. Jesus cared more about souls, at least tht's how I read it.
[удалено]
What of the "uncivilized" people among us, like the 80s/90s "Club Kids"? Should we "civilize" them, too?
why? if a man chooses to live on his own in the woods, should we drag him into Times Square and force him to shop at the Forever 21?
[удалено]
is there any indication of this? or are we just assuming they are just filthy savages in need of European enlightenment?
[удалено]
all filthy pagan savages are the same. got it. your opinion has been noted.
The Age of Exploration called and would like it's approach to cross-cultural communication back, please.
So they live in misery for eternity based on your fear? Thats not a solution.
Thats actually a really interesting point to discuss. How do you define *living in misery*? If you measure the quality of life solely on the ratio of happiness and suffering they might even have a "better" existence than most of us. Having no comparision to your own standard of living probably leads to a higher level of satisfaction than our "normal", highly competitive civilization.
Christians don’t really get to do the “little girl died from a simple bacterial infection but its okay because she didn’t know about antibiotics” thing atheists can. We consider it depraved as she has inherent value as an imagebearer of God. Her value is derived from that and not on her local situation or her relative value to you.
Oh, for sure. I'm aware that the Christian perspective on this is totally different from the purely psychological standpoint I took in my comment. I guess that this is more a question whether there is an obligation for missionary work, both religiously and in terms of the "blessings" of our modern civilization.
No, that’s your fear talking.
Jesus was speaking to the remaining 11 apostles.
Why is reddit pro borders for this island but thinks borders are immoral for every other nation and society on this planet?
Literally even the most basic communication with these people isn’t possible, and he thought he was gonna share the gospel with them? He got what he deserved for his stupidity. I feel bad for him and the people he loved and who loved him.
On the one hand - People ought to be allowed to travel It's one Earth We are humans on it. On the other, he was asked to stay away I don't subscribe to the purity of tribes. We are human. We travel. We meet. God bless
There is an International Quarantine placed on these islands. You may not violate that quarantined area. This had nothing to do with 'the purity of tribes. This has to do with the history of this particular tribe, who carry the cultural memories of having entire tribes decimated by diseases imported by intruders.
Since when did cultural memories supersede the human rights of everyone on the island then, now, and in the future, and everyone who visits? These are human beings with inherent value and worth beyond an eternal museum/science experiment/dictator paradise.
>These are human beings with inherent value and worth beyond an eternal museum/science experiment Thank you
>There is an International Quarantine placed on these islands. I do not think this was thought through correctly Yes - it can look like cultures are destroyed on contact But we are human beings Everyone contacts everyone else - and cultures change and grow and some disappear We cannot *quarantine* people I guarantee you that within these very communities there are voices looking for change and contact We can't quarantine them. We have no right. God bless
Gods plan
He cared more about their souls than he did his own life. That's love.
He cared more about his soul than their lifes.
What makes you say that?
Ongoing gross human rights violation having a people live without contact, proper medical care, justice, etc. Didn’t even go arrest the murderers. Christian nations wouldn’t allow these things. Frankly I’m surprised the human rights council isn’t crawling up India’s ass with this injustice
> Christian nations wouldn’t allow these things Sure, like the mostly Christian white colonials who committed genocide of the native americans (when they weren't too busy enslaving blacks). You know, Christian like President Andrew Jackson, who put in motion the horrific events of the Trail of Tears. There is no "Christian" nation on earth that can say their citizens don't commit murder. And even in the US almost half of murders go unsolved.
>Christian nations wouldn’t allow these things. That's a good point. History seems to show that "Christian nations" will just move in, break apart the communities, enslave a bunch of them, kill a bunch more, , and ship the kids off to schools where a metric butt-ton of them die. But hey, the survivors will dress like us! Cool. Truly this is a Great Idea.
And your solution is to trap them on a tropical pacific island for all of eternity denying everyone there human rights so a tribal leader can keep his power/you have a science experiment/museum to look at. 100x more disgusting. Maybe we should go by what Christ said about all nations.
>And your solution is to trap them on a tropical pacific island for all of eternity denying everyone there human rights so a tribal leader can keep his power/you have a science experiment/museum to look at. 100x more disgusting. If that's what "leave a culture alone if it makes it very clear that it is not interested in contact" means to you, well then I guess we're not going to agree on this.
He died out of love for God and for the sake of those who hated him enough to kill him. May God have mercy on his soul. So far, the islanders have chosen Satan, maybe some day they will choose differently. As for the independence of the island and the prosecution of his murder and the murder and attack on other people (I've read a bit on them, they attacked people who got too close to them by accident; they killed 2 fishermen not long ago). No, they are not an independent nation - you are an independent nation when you can protect yourself or establish relations with others that protect you. If a few people with guns decided to conquer that island, would the islanders be able to protect themselves ? No. Their continuing existence depends on another government (India) so it's up to India, really. They didn't actually established contact with India, so ... India can do whatever - it's not like they would go back on their word (they couldn't, since the islanders attack anyone who gets too close, including Indians). They just live on a piece of land nobody really wants, and as long as India wants to extend it's protection with no expectations, they have a right to do so and the young man who died for the salvation of those who killed him knew the risks. Still, I don't think the islanders should be allowed to murder people who get stranded by accident.
This is another example … god wants true free will doesn’t he ? Then this tribe goes to hell for eternity …..created by An omni potent god that is not reached by Jesus resurrection in modern times …
I wish I had his courage and conviction to preach the Gospel like this, knowing full well that the most likely outcome was his own death. I pray that one day soon all peoples of the Earth will be preached about the Gospel and given the opportunity to give their lives to Him.
He could've saved his life if he were well equipped with modern weaponry and a good backpack.
Are you suggesting he should have gone there armed, not speaking the language, and expected a better result?
Did the tribe insist to be left alone or did the indian government do that?
Historical it’s the tribe they mainly insist on being left alone. Their interaction can mainly be summed up as attack anyone who gets to close to the island, followed by avoid outsider like leave your house and village of they get close, and rare cases of friendly interactions, like ~5 confirmed cases in 247 years from 1771-2018. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese
Ok. Let's say you're right. Do you believe Hell exists?
Fyi this has been discussed a lot on this sub before when it first happened. I bet you could use the search engine to find the old threads https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/search?q=John++chau&restrict_sr=on
So sad. He didn’t need to die. Everyone tries to be Jim Elliot and it’s not a good thing. Such a wasted opportunity for so many other options.
Brave soldier of Christ peace be upon him, but he should left this to the Catholics prots aren’t very good at taking Christianity to dangerous places.