quote:

Originally posted by highroundcount:



The people that end up there by accident are a different story. The fishermen were fishing illegally yes, but they WERE NOT trying to fuck with the natives.

When I was a young boy we had a dump truck driver on medication plow through our retaining wall and into our backyard. Everyone survived including the dog which my father had taken out for a walk just moments before.

Some logic I'm seeing here indicates I would be justified running up to his truck and putting him down.

Somehow that does not seem justified.

I have some sympathy for those fisherman. However, they knowingly choose to go there knowing what that could entail. Though I don't really follow the dump track analogy. Unless your house had a 3 mile exclusion zone and it was well known you'd kill anybody that got close.

Sometimes I get Mormons and Jehovah's Witness folks coming around here. If I talk to them, I tell them I'm not interested, and they usually skedaddle.

Now, if they kept coming back, and tried climbing through my window to "save" me, I too might speed them on their way to meeting Jesus.

It's like the joke about the guy in the flood, waiting for God to save him. Army trucks, boats, and helicopters come by to pick him up, and he says each time, "No, the Lord will save me!" Then the flood waters wash him away and he dies. Gets to Heaven and demands to know why God didn't save him. God says, "I sent a truck, a boat, and a helicopter, what else were you expecting?"

Homeslice had plenty of opportunity to walk away, but he knew better, I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

Maybe we should hire them and put them on the Mexican border?



.

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

quote:

Originally posted by highroundcount:



The people that end up there by accident are a different story. The fishermen were fishing illegally yes, but they WERE NOT trying to fuck with the natives.

When I was a young boy we had a dump truck driver on medication plow through our retaining wall and into our backyard. Everyone survived including the dog which my father had taken out for a walk just moments before.

Some logic I'm seeing here indicates I would be justified running up to his truck and putting him down.

Somehow that does not seem justified.

I have some sympathy for those fisherman. However, they knowingly choose to go there knowing what that could entail. Though I don't really follow the dump track analogy. Unless your house had a 3 mile exclusion zone and it was well known you'd kill anybody that got close.

I guess my analogy has more to do with being in the wrong place at the wrong time and the question: Should that be a death sentence?

Aside from the fishing boat they also attacked a cargo ship run aground. Did they mean it,or were seeking to track down the natives? No, but they were dang sure they were about to be attacked for the "crime" of ending up on some shit hill island.

Also, firing on a military chopper checking to make sure you and your family is safe?.....dick move.

They may not understand what the hell is happening, but damn, hide until you are engaged.

What happens when they smoke the wrong adventurer that is connected or a military member of a large army and someone seeks retribution.

They will be done.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:

quote:

Originally posted by dar185:
The sad thing isn’t the ignorant atheists/agnostics that swarm to these threads. .

as an Agnostic, I feel he was free to do as he believed, just and you (and I) are free to do as we believe,

the only ignorant thing here is your comment, thinking all Agnostics are ignorant,,

Just a reason the "holier that thou" stereotype exists because there is plenty of truth to it.

Back OT,

You have a habit of taking a shot, then "getting back on topic."

I'll just point out the irony in you shot. A true Christian understands he is holier than no one.

Now that your ignorance has been cleared, back OT.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by mod29:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
Here’s an idea: charge the fishermen with his death.

How about chocking this up as someone sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, and not charging anyone?


...

The fishermen broke the law taking him there, and after reading that they let him go back to the island twice after being wounded, I have to wonder if there’s some criminal culpability there. There’s folks in this thread saying the islanders need to be arrested and charged with murder, I think the fisherman should have simply pulled anchor and left after he came back the first time instead of continuing to enable his fool’s errand.

My thought as well. The fisherman who brought this man there knew and understood, better than him, what the law was. The man was lucky not to have been killed Day 1. From the natives’ perspective, I’m betting they felt they were explicit in their message.
The fishermen should have pulled anchor and left with the young man after the first message was sent.
I wonder how much research he did before attempting contact.
Perhaps there was a communication barrier- the young man lived in the now of our times -“nowadays we give people multiple chances to fuck up before we finally put the hammer down”, and the time the natives currently live/survive in - where you probably don’t have the luxury of making the same mistake multiple times before you’re dead (not sure of what wild critters they cohabit with on the island, or diseases they encounter, but without modern medical facilities many mistakes could be immediately fatal, etc). The natives were being generous Day 1, imho.

As strange as the arguments in threads like this develop, I do appreciate them for what they reveal about human nature and attitudes.

Something that I’ve been thinking about for a few pages is that when the topic is deliberate suicide, many people are outraged that someone would do it for any reason. In this incident, though, I’m not seeing that despite the fact it was suicide just as much as if he’d suck-started a 12 gauge. The difference was that he got other people involved to do the actual deed and added to their life difficulties, even the killers’.

His action is excused by some because he was evidently motivated by a religious belief, but I truly do not understand how that motivation changed anything. He thought (we suppose) that he was doing a good thing, but so did the Heaven’s Gate crowd that thought they were going to a better life after they killed themselves. (And who knows? Perhaps they did.)

If we do something that is inherently deadly dangerous—be it wingsuiting through narrow canyons or going to places where strangers are regularly killed by drug gangs—what does our motive matter? Why are we doing it? Pride was one of the classical deadly sins, and that’s what either action seems to me: I can do something no one else can, so look at how wonderful I am. Attempts at religious conversion may be successful if one has an army of conquistadors at one’s back along with the help of guns, germs, and steel to convince the benighted, but that’s not common these days (well, not outside the Muslim world, anyway). What this guy did didn’t get him killed immediately, but neither does playing Russian roulette, at least not every time.

Can his friends and relatives take comfort, and pride themselves, in the fact that he committed suicide for religious reasons when they wouldn’t if he’d done it because he had incurable cancer or because he wanted to be with the rest of his family who were killed in a plane crash?

quote:

Pride was one of the classical deadly sins, and that’s what either action seems to me: I can do something no one else can, so look at how wonderful I am

This is exactly the point I made a page or two back. He made several attempts despite it being made clear at multiple times that he WAS NOT WANTED, nor was HIS GOD. This was not a case of a humble approach to the savages that got him killed. It was his stubborn, ignorant PRIDE alone. The fishermen are not to blame, god isn’t to blame, the natives (who could arguably be said to have exhausted all other options) are not to blame. Hubris got this man killed, plain and simple.

In the end, I guess the dead missionary & the Warriors will meet again in heaven. Jesus is all knowing, loving & forgiving. So, catch as catch can. Can you do anything you want & still be saved?

I just want to treat people like I want to be treated, that's my religion, kinda "Do unto others".

quote:

"Do unto others"

Without the rest of the passage, this carries a completely different connotation

...as you would have them do unto you.
Is that the same as treating others as you would like to be treated?

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is called the “Golden Rule,” and for some strange reason Jesus is given the credit by many for supposedly having been the first to articulate it. The problem is that nearly everyone believes there are important exceptions to the rule.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis accurately described what many believe, “the right to be left alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men,” but that right can hardly be honored if the demands of one’s religion require us to try to convert others to our beliefs. Even though the Golden Rule is held up as the most important moral precept, in the view of many it is absolutely trumped by the requirement to convert all infidels.

Plus, of course, there is a strong element of After they realize what’s good for them, they’ll be happy I did this: “Rutabagas are such a tasty food! That’s all I’ll serve my children until they all enjoy them as much as I do.” By that reasoning converting unbelievers—even forcibly—is a perfectly legitimate application of the GR.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is called the “Golden Rule,” and for some strange reason Jesus is given the credit by many for supposedly having been the first to articulate it. The problem is that nearly everyone believes there are important exceptions to the rule.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis accurately described what many believe, “the right to be left alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men,” but that right can hardly be honored if the demands of one’s religion require us to try to convert others to our beliefs. Even though the Golden Rule is held up as the most important moral precept, in the view of many it is absolutely trumped by the requirement to convert all infidels.

Plus, of course, there is a strong element of After they realize what’s good for them, they’ll be happy I did this: “Rutabagas are such a tasty food! That’s all I’ll serve my children until they all enjoy them as much as I do.” By that reasoning converting unbelievers—even forcibly—is a perfectly legitimate application of the GR.

There has never been a call for Christians to convert anyone against their wishes. Oh, people who called themselves Christians tried. The Roman Catholic religion has a long history of imposing itself on others, even up to death. Islam does it, still. Ancient religions did it. But true Christianity never has. Christ gave his followers a great commission to preach the gospel to the whole world. Preach, not ram down the throat. He gave explicit instructions to simply abandon the effort when those to whom it is preached reject it. He told the apostles to kick the dust off their feet of those places that wouldn't accept it. He, himself, left areas that didn't accept him. He does this because it is the Christian's place to peach the gospel - not turn a heart. Only god, according to the bible has that ability.

He gave very explicit instructions regarding preaching to those who have shown themselves hostile to the truth: "Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6)

There's a reason. Some people were created for salvation, some, apparently, not. "This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, ... for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed." (1 Peter 2:7-8)

For the Christian, rejection of the gospel is to be expected and respected. After all, the bible is clear most of those that hear it won't accept and cannot understand it. After an appropriate effort to preach the truth, and upon rejection, they are to be left in their condition.

If I try to see it as the missionary likely did, he believed the souls on that island were lost to everlasting damnation with Satan if they did not accept Jesus as their Savior. That perspective of faith and his potentially selfless desire to offer them salvation seems to have been enough to drive him toward obvious danger. I wouldn't do what he did. Not because I don't have driving faith, but because I believe the Lord's plan for them is different than what the missionary believes.

It is human nature to evangelize our passionate convictions. Gun guys do it. Anti gunners do it. Algore and his adherents do it. Spiritualists do it. Politicians do it. Dodge guys try to convert Ford guys and Chevy guys try to convince themselves (lol) () It is human nature to become correspondingly passionate about those things we invest ourselves in. I guess my point is that this missionary didn't do anything we haven't seen from humanity before and his motivations could just as easily be assigned to selfless concern for others....even hostile others.

So what di we learn from this? I suppose that depends upon which lenses we view it through.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
If I try to see it as the missionary likely did, he believed the souls on that island were lost to everlasting damnation with Satan if they did not accept Jesus as their Savior. That perspective of faith and his potentially selfless desire to offer them salvation seems to have been enough to drive him toward obvious danger. I wouldn't do what he did. Not because I don't have driving faith, but because I believe the Lord's plan for them is different than what the missionary believes.

It is human nature to evangelize our passionate convictions. Gun guys do it. Anti gunners do it. Algore and his adherents do it. Spiritualists do it. Politicians do it. Dodge guys try to convert Ford guys and Chevy guys try to convince themselves (lol) () It is human nature to become correspondingly passionate about those things we invest ourselves in. I guess my point is that this missionary didn't do anything we haven't seen from humanity before and his motivations could just as easily be assigned to selfless concern for others....even hostile others.

So what di we learn from this? I suppose that depends upon which lenses we view it through.

I learned that primitive arrows work just as well as fancy new ones as a means of saying get off my lawn.

An argument has been made that people who had never heard the Christian message couldn’t justifiably be damned for not believing that Christ was the Savior because, well …, just like infants they had never so much as heard of him, much less understood the message.

When that objection was reportedly posed to one missionary, his response was, “Well, now they’ve heard of Him.” By implication they were then subject to damnation and hell if they didn’t believe because they no longer had the ignorance excuse, whereas if the missionary had never visited them, they would have still been in a state of innocence. What do we think of the morality of that?

The islanders need some:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
An argument has been made that people who had never heard the Christian message couldn’t justifiably be damned for not believing that Christ was the Savior because, well …, just like infants they had never so much as heard of him, much less understood the message.

When that objection was reportedly posed to one missionary, his response was, “Well, now they’ve heard of Him.” By implication they were then subject to damnation and hell if they didn’t believe because they no longer had the ignorance excuse, whereas if the missionary had never visited them, they would still have been in a state of innocence.

To clarify for you the Christian perspective:
1) All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
2) Everyone is convicted by their sins either under God's expressed Law made known to them or God's internal law made known to them by their conscience.
3) Everyone has been condemned to hell unless they avail of salvation through Jesus. There is only one name given under heaven by which people might be saved.

Paul tackled this subject in his letter to the Romans. A very scholarly treatise. When studied by a Catholic priest, it started the whole protestant movement.

The implication you mentioned reminds me of how I felt then the nuns explained that I get to go to heaven if I die shortly after the sacraments like baptism. I thought, "Gee, they could have waited until I was a lot older then. What a shame to have wasted a sacrament."

quote:

Originally posted by recoatlift:
...as you would have them do unto you.
Is that the same as treating others as you would like to be treated?

Yes, but if you leave off the second half you provided, it takes on a completely different meaning. So sayeth Chiun the Magnificent.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I thought, "Gee, they could have waited until I was a lot older then. What a shame to have wasted a sacrament."

That is why Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor, reportedly waited until he was on his deathbed before allowing himself to be baptized.

And yes, many Christians believe that ignorance of the Messiah message is no excuse for anyone: “Didn’t know? Too bad, you’re screwed anyway.” But that’s so manifestly unjust that many others rejected the notion and had to then deal with the next logical question of what happened to the ignorant. The Catholic church came up with a solution for unbaptized infants, which was “Limbo.” That’s evidently a not very nice place, but not hell either, despite the fact that infants are supposedly tainted with Original Sin just as much as the rest of us.
Oh, the tangled webs we weave ….