American missionary killed by isolated tribe on remote island in the Indian Ocean

[luvsJack]

Of course acting on a supoosed calling is a decision.

Your lack of belief doesn’t change what he felt. You don’t get to decide what he was led to do.

 

[luvsJack]

Being okay with genocide automatically places you in the hate camp.

Good Lord. Can you possibly reach any further out into Neverland??

No one said that his going there was a good thing for these people. I can say that he had a reason that he felt strongly about and say that it, perhaps, wasn’t the right thing to do for these people.

No one is “ok with genocide”. That is ridiculous.

 

[CarolAnn856]

Your lack of belief doesn’t change what he felt. You don’t get to decide what he was led to do.

So, you're cool with terrorists who "felt" that they were "led" to kill, too?

 

[CarolAnn856]

Good Lord. Can you possibly reach any further out into Neverland??

No one said that his going there was a good thing for these people. I can say that he had a reason that he felt strongly about and say that it, perhaps, wasn’t the right thing to do for these people.

No one is “ok with genocide”. That is ridiculous.

If you are in any justifying his actions, they you are okay with genocide. There's no other way to look at it. YOU are the one letting his motive color your opinion.

 

[luvsJack]

If you are in any justifying his actions, they you are okay with genocide. There's no other way to look at it. YOU are the one letting his motive color your opinion.

I am saying WHY he did this. If he felt called to do this he had a reason. Does it justify it? I don’t know. I never once said “it’s ok that he went there because xyz”. That would be justifying. I did not do that.

And as far as I know, he didn’t go there with the intention of killing anyone which makes him WORLDS apart from terroists.

My opinion is that he was a missionary that had a calling (or felt he had a calling) to go to this island. No more no less.

You are the one that is stretching anything that was said waaaayyyy past where it was.

 

[RedAngie]

Even Gilligan was smarter than this moron. Gilligan had enough sense to be wary of the headhunters when they visited the island.

 

[JaneBanks]

Who has said anything that can be remotely considered hate for these people??

Talk about a reach.

Calling them savages is pretty close.

 

[CarolAnn856]

I am saying WHY he did this. If he felt called to do this he had a reason. Does it justify it? I don’t know. I never once said “it’s ok that he went there because xyz”. That would be justifying. I did not do that.

And as far as I know, he didn’t go there with the intention of killing anyone which makes him WORLDS apart from terroists.

My opinion is that he was a missionary that had a calling (or felt he had a calling) to go to this island. No more no less.

You are the one that is stretching anything that was said waaaayyyy past where it was.

He knew going would likely kill many, and since he decided to go anyway, he absolutely went with the intention of killing. The fact that you feel compelled to identify this as a "calling" over and over again in response to posters who agree that he had no right to go means you are trying to justify it.

Feel free to keep spinning this any way you want. The truth remains.

 

[luvsJack]

He knew going would likely kill many, and since he decided to go anyway, he absolutely went with the intention of killing. The fact that you feel compelled to identify this as a "calling" over and over again in response to posters who agree that he had no right to go means you are trying to justify it.

Feel free to keep spinning this any way you want. The truth remains.

I don’t feel compelled to call it anything. A preacher is called to the misnistry. A missionary is called into missions. A Nun is called into the convent. That’s how it works.

As a missionary they are called to go certain places. That’s what it is. Not how I identify anything. As I told a pp, lack of belief doesn’t change that.

He broke the law by going and that took his “right” to go. But you have no clue that he had intention of killing anyone. That is you projecting your opinion on his motives.

 

[luvsJack]

Calling them savages is pretty close.

I didn’t call them savages. But I can understand the use of the word.

 

[JaneBanks]

I didn’t call them savages. But I can understand the use of the word.

I didn't say you did and I'm sure you can.

 

[amberpi]

I doubt he had the Black Plague. But yes he could have other harmful things these people could not fight off. Every country has the right to decide who enters, and has the duty to its people to keep illegals out. Not just these island peoples.

I was being hyperbolic citing the Black Death, and thought it was kinda funny because no one has the Plague anymore. Its very different though to compare civilized people with modern immune systems to aboriginal peoples.

 

[GreatLakes]

He offered $350 to men who likely didn’t see that much money in an entire year. That’s a small fortune to people who are trying to survive at a subsistence level. To put people in a position where they have to choose between breaking the law or providing security to their family is morally reprehensible, IMO.

Everyone involved in this cluster had free will. The guy that got killed, the tribe that killed him, and the people that helped.

When someone offfers you money to commit a crime you say no. Full stop. Doesn't matter if it was $350 to help get somewhere you aren't allowed or $100,000 to smuggle drugs. You say no or you are complicit and gilty.

 

[luvsJack]

I didn't say you did and I'm sure you can.

The definition of the word is untamed, uncivilized.

 

[AustinMommyofThree]

The definition of the word is untamed, uncivilized.

People are not “tamed” and this population very much has a civilization. One that has existed for millennia, in fact, which is what they are trying to protect. Your defense of an insulting word is telling.

 

[Cubbiecakes]

Since proselytizing is basically just another form of rape, I'm happy the rapist got what was coming to him. The whole idea of him even going is an act of terrorism.

There is a huge difference in pushing and telling. Just because you don’t want to hear it doesn’t mean anyone is pushing anything.

Just because someone may have the right to say something, doesn't mean that they have also the right to force any other person to listen to it. If I don't want to hear something, you are pushing it on me.

 

[handinpocket]

OF COURSE the guy was an idiot and OF COURSE the tribe are SAVAGES.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

Everyone involved in this cluster had free will. The guy that got killed, the tribe that killed him, and the people that helped.

When someone offfers you money to commit a crime you say no. Full stop. Doesn't matter if it was $350 to help get somewhere you aren't allowed or $100,000 to smuggle drugs. You say no or you are complicit and gilty.

Of course they had free will, I never said otherwise. What I have issue with is his taking advantage of those fishermen by leveraging their poverty status against them. Should you ever be so unfortunate to find yourself in circumstances where you’re struggling to provide even basic food and shelter for yourself and your family, and then someone comes along who offers you a windfall of cash in exchange for a boat ride.... Well, the morally correct answer may not be so black and white for you anymore.

 

[Pumbaa_]

Think of the good he could have done instead of illegally going to a no contact civilization
What a waste of life

 

[underdesea]

Since proselytizing is basically just another form of rape, I'm happy the rapist got what was coming to him. The whole idea of him even going is an act of terrorism.

Just because someone may have the right to say something, doesn't mean that they have also the right to force any other person to listen to it. If I don't want to hear something, you are pushing it on me.

I so agree with this. It's interesting to me that some people (not referring to any poster here, just in general society) complain about, say, members of the LGBTQ community "shoving their life into others' faces" or whatnot, just by existing openly, but have no problem with religious views being specifically targeted to those who don't necessarily share those views or want to be subjected to someone trying to change their minds.