Christianity Needs to Return to Being a Good Example

God Sheltered Me

That missionary seemingly had an immature innocent sort of all-or-nothing faith. I don't think he was anywhere near ready to convert the natives, but he certainly sped up his own journey to heaven...if that was his final destination.

quote:

---

NEW DELHI — The young American, paddling his kayak toward a remote Indian island whose people have resisted the outside world for thousands of years, believed God was helping him dodge the authorities.

“God sheltered me and camouflaged me against the coast guard and the navy,” John Allen Chau wrote before he was killed last week on North Sentinel Island.

Indian ships monitor the waters around the island, trying to ensure outsiders do not go near the Sentinelese, who have repeatedly made clear they want to be left alone.

When a young boy tried to hit him with an arrow on his first day on the island, Chau swam back to the fishing boat he had arranged to wait for him offshore. The arrow, he wrote, hit a Bible he was carrying.

“Why did a little kid have to shoot me today?” he wrote in his notes, which he left with the fishermen before swimming back the next morning. “His high-pitched voice still lingers in my head.”
Police say Chau knew that the Sentinelese resisted all contact by outsiders, firing arrows and spears at passing helicopters and killing fishermen who drift onto their shore. His notes, which were reported Thursday in Indian newspapers and confirmed by police, make clear he knew he might be killed.

---

In a way, I think the guy had a martyr complex. He almost wanted to die in service to God (in his imagination) but in actuality, he was not equipped for the task that he set out to do.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

The world is full of whackos, god knows why your god likes to make them, but apparently he does. It's even odder that he allows one of his creation to be killed trying to do something he instructed him to do.

Maybe you can tell us?

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...-death-john-allen-chau

A comprehending observer would realize that, however ill-considered Chau’s plan was, it made sense to him given evangelical assumptions about salvation and eternity. “Leave North Sentinel Island alone” makes perfect sense if what you believe about God has nothing to do with your eternal fate. If there is no afterlife (or if we can’t know anything about the afterlife) then what Chau was doing was the height of foolishness. I don’t know much about the details of Chau’s faith per se, and he seems to have worked in some capacity for the All Nations sending organization. His diary entries suggest that he believed that reconciliation with God through Christ is the most important thing in life. It is a life-or-death issue for everyone, and thus something you’d lay down your life for. This is logical, if you assume what evangelicals believe is true. The Journal‘s response to Chau’s death stands in stark contrast to the media coverage of Jim Elliot and the Ecuador martyrs in 1956. In particular, Life magazine gave enormously sympathetic (one might say fawning) coverage to Elliot’s death and that of his missionary companions in a spearing attack by Waorani Indians. The difference in coverage surely has to do with the fact that Chau seems, at first glance, like more of a rogue actor than Elliot. But the contrast is also a gauge of how much American culture has changed in the intervening six decades. A national magazine such as Life in 1956 would at least resonate with the attempt to bring Western civilization to people they called “Stone Age savages.” But Life also faithfully represented Elliot’s evangelical agenda, as he explained that he and his colleagues were under divine commission to preach the gospel to all nations. Six decades later, we live in world where academic and media elites are allergic to the notion that one culture is superior to another....

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=843995#m843995

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Did you have a point?

Something being logical because it's based on previous assumptions definitely does not make it good or right.

If you believe bringing God to strangers is a life or death issue, then it's logical to force your ideas of God on strangers.
If you believe waving hello to strangers is a life or death issue, then it's logical to wave to all strangers.
If you believe insulting strangers is a life a life or death issue, then it's logical to force your insults on strangers.

Whether the action was logical according to his beliefs is not being questioned.

I'm simply condemning his actions on a higher level.
Being rude and forcing your views on others is bad and wrong, regardless of how logical it may or may not be.

There are many ways to set a good example and allow others to choose to investigate your motives if they desire.

Spread the word using good methods.
Do not spread the word using rude, bad methods.
Regardless of low 'logical' either one may or may not be based on personal assumptions.

Faith,to Stile writes: This idea that we should just be nicey nice and never preach the gospel to anyone is actually a sentence to eternal misery for those we encounter. If we really love people we want the best for them.

Stile writes: Forcing your beliefs on others is not wanting the best for them - it's wanting the best for you.

Quick question. How many here think that the Apostle Paul "forced his beliefs" on others?

What does the evidence show?

Being rude and forcing your views on others is bad and wrong, regardless of how logical it may or may not be. There are many ways to set a good example and allow others to choose to investigate your motives if they desire. Spread the word using good methods.

I agree. Critics would say, however, that the end justifies the means. If we suffered an economic collapse or another major 9-11 type attack, forcing us into war, the streets would run thick with preachers and society likely would have them arrested. Whether that would further add fuel to the fire in a war of ideologies is uncertain as of yet.

If we suffered an economic collapse or another major 9-11 type attack, forcing us into war, the streets would run thick with preachers and society likely would have them arrested.

Wtf?
Two questions. Why and why? Why would the streets be full if preach and why would they be arrested?

Phat writes: Quick question. How many here think that the Apostle Paul "forced his beliefs" on others?

Paul, if Paul even existed, was incapable of ever forcing beliefs on anyone once he lost the power he had under traditional Judaism.

BUT it was Constantine and the folk that followed him that did force membership in Christianity on pretty much the then Western World. After Constantine Christianity was spread almost entirely through coercion and direct decree.

Phat writes: If we suffered an economic collapse or another major 9-11 type attack, forcing us into war, the streets would run thick with preachers and society likely would have them arrested. Whether that would further add fuel to the fire in a war of ideologies is uncertain as of yet.

You're getting really desperate Phat.

Theodoric writes: Two questions. Why and why?

There are still large numbers of believers who are not current zealots because they believe to some extent that society is OK now. If, however, our money were worthless, or our jobs vanished, or our government turned out to be a people who valued things that we abhor, coupled all with a major event we would be preaching. Large enough numbers that there would be martial law. I know these people...thats my evidence. They would be angry and would blame fallen humanity for bringing it all about.

What would you do in such a situation? Simply trust that the government would put Humpty Dumpty back together again? Of course I forget that you have never believed that people needed God. You likely believe that we humans are always capable of logic, reason, and a realization of what needs to be done. And I wouldn't disagree...as a moderate. BUT I would be wary of a fair recovery.

jar writes: Paul, if Paul even existed, was incapable of ever forcing beliefs on anyone once he lost the power he had under traditional Judaism.

It figures. You always thought that Jesus should remain a property of Judaism and that the new religion was in effect the problem.

Phat writes: You always thought that Jesus should remain a property of Judaism and that the new religion was in effect the problem.

Sheesh Phat, don't you know anything about Christianity? Saul of Tarsus was a witness to the first Christian Martyr incident. As a Pharisee Saul had power, power to actually force and impose things on others under pain of execution.

But Paul of Tarsus had no such power.

And once again you are simply totally misrepresenting what I have said and what I believe. You really need to stop doing that.

jar writes: As a Pharisee Saul had power, power to actually force and impose things on others under pain of execution. But Paul of Tarsus had no such power.

And yet the message of Paul of Tarsus exists to this day and is quoted daily around the world. I suppose you would argue that Christianity was spread by people such as Constantine and Robertson and Swaggart. That it was spread by the greedy and political side of human nature.

I would argue that the only reason Pauls message is still read today is because of the power and will of the Holy Spirit. Look at this bit from Acts:

Point being that the reason that Christianity has spread the way that it has is arguably due to a good Spirit(vibe) within humans rather than an ulterior,greedy,power-hungry motivation. The ones who do so out of vain ambition will come to nothing. I will admit that the message is often sold and spread for want of money. We really dont know if Constantine was an instrument of GOD or not....but we *know* that Pat Robertson was used more by the worldly spirit of greed and power than he was used by the Holy Spirit.

And i suppose that if they were judging you and I, the jury would be split also.

I sometimes feel that you cause doubt by challenging people to question whether or not they have God or if they have a bad burrito. Perhaps, however, it is good and wise to be certain rather than to fall prey to charlatans.

And yes, Christianity is about what you *do* rather than simply what you *believe*. My show on facebook is free and always will be. I never plan on asking for money. If they offer me some, I will take it, of course.

As for Christianity, we have discussed what it is, what it should be, the source of it, and the content thereof. I believe as Gamaliel said in Acts--if the motive is of Divine Origin, nothing will ever stop it but it is of human origin, it will fail of its own accord.

Phat writes: I suppose you would argue that Christianity was spread by people such as Constantine and Robertson and Swaggart.

I would point that the evidence shows that Christianity was spread by Constantine and people like the Henrys and Edwards but that Robertson and Swaggart were just Snake Oil Salesmen spouting their spiel to the country rubes and supported by their employee who suddenly throws away his crutches after just one swallow from the bottle.

Phat writes: We really dont know if Constantine was an instrument of GOD or not....but we *know* that Pat Robertson was used more by the worldly spirit of greed and power than he was used by the Holy Spirit.

Too funny. It is irrelevant who or even what an "instrument of God" might be but what we can do is actually look at the evidence.

Constantine made Christianity the State Religion and so people became Christians.

Henry made Protestantism the State Religion and so people became Protestants.

Emperor Charles and Francis I made Roman Catholicism the State religion and so the people of France and of the Holy Roman Empire became Catholics.

In all cases though if you were a Jew you faced the choice of adopting the State Religion of Pogrom.

Edward VI published the Book of Common Prayer and so all English adopted the BCP.

James I and VI produced the "Authorized King James Version of the Bible and so people adopted the King James Version of the Bible.

In each such case (and there are many such cases) the overriding belief being adopted is that "If I don't go along and adopt the State's position I will lose out in the here and now".

Phat writes: As for Christianity, we have discussed what it is, what it should be, the source of it, and the content thereof. I believe as Gamaliel said in Acts--if the motive is of Divine Origin, nothing will ever stop it but it is of human origin, it will fail of its own accord.

More word salad. If something succeeds then say Goddidit but if it fails say Goddidnotdoit.

But the evidence shows what I outline above. The idea of allowing anyone free choice of religion is simply a very modern aberration. Ones beliefs and religion throughout history have been determined by the State.