Christian Missionary Loses Faith Living with Brazilian Tribe

[Infohawk]

Guardian story

My favorite part is how his "Christian" family ostracizes him afterwards. I thought Christians were all about family values and love. :roll:

 

[GenHoth]

So they're shitty christians, so what?

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Guardian story

My favorite part is how his "Christian" family ostracizes him afterwards. I thought Christians were all about family values and love. :roll:

Not every person who claims they're a Christian is a Christian. You're not looking to express surprise though, you know there are hypocrits in every religion, faith or creed, so without further ado, commense taking a crap on a group of people via an exception.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: GenHoth
So they're shitty christians, so what?

They and their ilk should refrain from preaching.

 

[Farang]

Really interesting article, thanks. Although I disagree with your framing of this as something anti-Christian.

 

[Duwelon]

One thing I found interesting about this article, even though the OPost is a steaming pile of doodoo:

"When they heard the word of God, his evangelic mission believed, they would be converted. Everett translated the Book of Luke, read it to the Pirahã and they were utterly unmoved. By 1985, he had privately lost his faith."

If that really is true exactly like the article states, then the guy never had a good Biblical background. Nowhere in the Bible is a magical combination of words you can speak to someone to turn their minds from their sins to loving God and repenting. If his faith was based on the idea that anywhere he went would produce Christians from Non-Christians, it was no surprise he went astray.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
One thing I found interesting about this article, even though the OPost is a steaming pile of doodoo:

"When they heard the word of God, his evangelic mission believed, they would be converted. Everett translated the Book of Luke, read it to the Pirahã and they were utterly unmoved. By 1985, he had privately lost his faith."

If that really is true exactly like the article states, then the guy never had a good Biblical background. Nowhere in the Bible is a magical combination of words you can speak to someone to turn their minds from their sins to loving God and repenting. If his faith was based on the idea that anywhere he went would produce Christians from Non-Christians, it was no surprise he went astray.

Right.... :roll:

That's such a freakin' ridiculous notion that they'll magically be converted to Christianity if they heard the right translation of the Gospel of Luke. Why do they need converting anyway?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
If that really is true exactly like the article states, then the guy never had a good Biblical background, because nowhere in the Bible is a magical combination of words you can speak to someone to turn their minds from their sins to loving God and repenting. If his faith was based on the idea that anywhere he went would produce Christians from Non-Christians, it was no surprise he went astray.

And you'll see in the rest of the article that you are a lot like his wife (you know, the one that took a crap on their marriage) who thinks he just wasn't doing it right.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Duwelon
If that really is true exactly like the article states, then the guy never had a good Biblical background, because nowhere in the Bible is a magical combination of words you can speak to someone to turn their minds from their sins to loving God and repenting. If his faith was based on the idea that anywhere he went would produce Christians from Non-Christians, it was no surprise he went astray.

And you'll see in the rest of the article that you are a lot like his wife (you know, the one that took a crap on their marriage) who thinks he just wasn't doing it right.

Yes, let's jump to crazy conclusions about their personal lives based on 1 article and how much you know someone from a forum.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Yes, let's jump to crazy conclusions about their personal lives based on 1 article and how much you know someone from a forum.

I'm not saying you crap on your marriage, I'm just saying your positions sound a lot like this woman's. But you can correct me if I'm wrong. Do you agree that these people don't need to be converted?

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: GenHoth
So they're shitty christians, so what?

Most Christians are shitty Christians. That's the point.

Why bother if you're just going to be bad at it ?

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: GenHoth
So they're shitty christians, so what?

Most Christians are shitty Christians. That's the point.

Why bother if you're just going to be bad at it ?

Because it makes me a better person. Why do they do it? I have no idea, that is their business, not mine.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think it really interesting the people who defend Noam Chomsky's linguistic theories are called "Chomskyites". People who defend his geopolitical views are called the same thing, as if they're drinking some kind of koo-aid.

Chomsky's linguistic theories are pretty widely accepted, and nobody's going to learn Pirahã to validate or falsify this guy's exceptional claims. If he's so interested in contributing to academia, why doesn't he learn some other languages (you know, that other academics speak) so he can make peer-reviewed observations? I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Chomsky's linguistic theories are pretty widely accepted, and nobody's going to learn Pirahã to validate or falsify this guy's exceptional claims. If he's so interested in contributing to academia, why doesn't he learn some other languages (you know, that other academics speak) so he can make peer-reviewed observations? I'm not holding my breath.

That is a good point. He challenges a mainstream view and the only way to disprove it is to learn a new language--not only that but you have to learn it to his fluency level to be able to prove him wrong.

At the same time what he is saying is not that all languages go against Chomsky's model, in fact all languages that academia studies agree with it, but that this exception proves that model wrong. If that is the case then there is no other way to disprove it than to learn this language.

It seems as if the basis of your argument is laziness. You should not have to prove him wrong because it is too difficult to do so. That can be reasonable in some cases, but I believe with his education this man has the right to ask people to get to work to prove him wrong.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Yes, let's jump to crazy conclusions about their personal lives based on 1 article and how much you know someone from a forum.

I'm not saying you crap on your marriage, I'm just saying your positions sound a lot like this woman's. But you can correct me if I'm wrong. Do you agree that these people don't need to be converted?

You'll have to mention some specific positions that his wife and myself have in common. I don't know what happened between their family, i dont know who walked out on who, etc.

Do they need to be converted? Of course they do. Unless they embrace Jesus as their savior, repent of their sins then they will be judged and have to pay accordingly for them. What good is a comfortable life on earth when you still get thrown into Hell? I realize my audience here, i'm not trying to preach per se, it's just that no matter how "good" someone is on earth, we all need a savior.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
One thing I found interesting about this article, even though the OPost is a steaming pile of doodoo:

"When they heard the word of God, his evangelic mission believed, they would be converted. Everett translated the Book of Luke, read it to the Pirahã and they were utterly unmoved. By 1985, he had privately lost his faith."

If that really is true exactly like the article states, then the guy never had a good Biblical background. Nowhere in the Bible is a magical combination of words you can speak to someone to turn their minds from their sins to loving God and repenting. If his faith was based on the idea that anywhere he went would produce Christians from Non-Christians, it was no surprise he went astray.

judge others much?

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Chomsky's linguistic theories are pretty widely accepted, and nobody's going to learn Pirahã to validate or falsify this guy's exceptional claims. If he's so interested in contributing to academia, why doesn't he learn some other languages (you know, that other academics speak) so he can make peer-reviewed observations? I'm not holding my breath.

That is a good point. He challenges a mainstream view and the only way to disprove it is to learn a new language--not only that but you have to learn it to his fluency level to be able to prove him wrong.

At the same time what he is saying is not that all languages go against Chomsky's model, in fact all languages that academia studies agree with it, but that this exception proves that model wrong. If that is the case then there is no other way to disprove it than to learn this language.

It seems as if the basis of your argument is laziness. You should not have to prove him wrong because it is too difficult to do so. That can be reasonable in some cases, but I believe with his education this man has the right to ask people to get to work to prove him wrong.

This is where I disagree. If you want to challenge a theory as central as Chomsky's, the burden is on you. If this guy wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do the gruntwork. He needs to publish translation dictionaries, he needs to document their conversations, he needs translate those conversations, and he needs to make such a compelling case that academics actually want to learn enough of this language to study it.

One more concern: (This is where my complete ignorance on linguistic theory may hurt me.) If this tribe, that has existed on an extremely small scale and in social isolation for hundreds, maybe thousands of years, lacks some basic tenets of language and Chomsky's model says it should exist, isn't it plausible that the language has simply evolved to remove those elements as they are not needed? Again, I could be way off base here, but it seems to me that an exception here might not be a death blow to Chomsky's ideas anyway.

 

[Farang]

I see your point there. Chomsky has sort of an institution built around himself, so why should he or his supporters be in a position of having the burden of proof. I suppose unless we see another few shots across the bow like this one then supporting evidence for Chomsky won't be necessary. I'm not sure this article provides enough information, though, it just claims he is coming out against Chomsky and provides a few examples how. Maybe he has written up a more detailed argument including translations and whatnot.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Farang
I see your point there. Chomsky has sort of an institution built around himself, so why should he or his supporters be in a position of having the burden of proof. I suppose unless we see another few shots across the bow like this one then supporting evidence for Chomsky won't be necessary. I'm not sure this article provides enough information, though, it just claims he is coming out against Chomsky and provides a few examples how. Maybe he has written up a more detailed argument including translations and whatnot.

Yeah, I went to his website, and he seems more legit than I originally thought. He is a professor of linguistics, so he would understand language structure much better than me, and he would have a much better sense for the implications of his observations. The way the article was written it almost seemed like he was some eccentric that went out into the woods and came back out with a new theory of relativity... that only he could understand.

Anyway, interesting stuff. I guess we'll see what comes of it.

 

[crisscross]

Very interesting article. Is it just or do the British really have more varied content than the American Media?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Farang
Really interesting article, thanks. Although I disagree with your framing of this as something anti-Christian.

Ditto. Someone losing face in their religion is not a worthy news story (and has happened enough times that this isn't going to chance anyone's mind about religion), but the practice of forcing religion and culture onto other societies is an important issue. Whose right is it to do so, versus living conditions that would be considered child abuse and possibly insane in any modernized nation.

If he actually learned some niche language just to teach them religion though, that is pretty impressive. And I can see why he might lose faith, it probably took a crap load of effort to do, with no instant (or any?) reward afterward.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: Farang
Really interesting article, thanks. Although I disagree with your framing of this as something anti-Christian.

Ditto. Someone losing face in their religion is not a worthy news story (and has happened enough times that this isn't going to chance anyone's mind about religion), but the practice of forcing religion and culture onto other societies is an important issue. Whose right is it to do so, versus living conditions that would be considered child abuse and possibly insane in any modernized nation.

If he actually learned some niche language just to teach them religion though, that is pretty impressive. And I can see why he might lose faith, it probably took a crap load of effort to do, with no instant (or any?) reward afterward.

maybe he felt that these people were living without religion and were wonderful people..maybe he felt that the people who had been preaching this shit to him were the real sick ones...

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: GenHoth
So they're shitty christians, so what?

Most Christians are shitty Christians. That's the point.

Why bother if you're just going to be bad at it ?

Because it makes me a better person. Why do they do it? I have no idea, that is their business, not mine.

I love Christians who don't think others have to be like them.. they are the best.. That stuff is personal.. please keep it there

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Yes, let's jump to crazy conclusions about their personal lives based on 1 article and how much you know someone from a forum.

I'm not saying you crap on your marriage, I'm just saying your positions sound a lot like this woman's. But you can correct me if I'm wrong. Do you agree that these people don't need to be converted?

You'll have to mention some specific positions that his wife and myself have in common. I don't know what happened between their family, i dont know who walked out on who, etc.

Do they need to be converted? Of course they do. Unless they embrace Jesus as their savior, repent of their sins then they will be judged and have to pay accordingly for them. What good is a comfortable life on earth when you still get thrown into Hell? I realize my audience here, i'm not trying to preach per se, it's just that no matter how "good" someone is on earth, we all need a savior.

What about people who lived in distant lands, such as these people, who have never been visited by missionaries?
These people were of course born in these places based on God's plan. Apparently he condemned them to Hell. Charming.

Oh wait, it was their own sinful fault for being born there in the first place, so God can wash his hands of any involvement, and just laugh with mild bemusement as they scream endlessly in Hell for not believing in something they didn't have any way of knowing about.


Your God scares me, not because I fear Hell (doesn't exist), but because if he did exist, this place would be a lot more chaotic. (Or orderly, depending on how you think of it, like how a military dictatorship can be quite orderly.) He's a nut at best, deranged at worst.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How it works is that Christianity is exclusive religion by it's nature, and with the world being "why can't we all get along together" it creates conflicts with those who don't like that. Someeople hate "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me". OK, that being the case, and that it was mandated by the Great Commission to go out to places like these, they go. It's THE imperative, so yes by what they have learned conversion is necessary. What's not being understood by some here is speaking words as if an incantation isn't going to do anything. When Paul went out, he spent time talking to the people and getting to know them and preaching to them over time. Missionaries spend entire lifetimes doing just that and helping in the community not just as people in a pulpit but health care workers and educators. They become part of the community in that sense. Those they associate with have a choice to accept Christianity or not. It's their choice. Christianity is exclusive in the sense that Christians believe that the way to heaven is through Christ, but you cannot force conversions, because that's a personal choice. You say yes or no. The vast majority of missionaries understand that. A bit of background for context.

In this case, this fellow felt differently. He chose a path that was at odds with his families core values. That you disagree with them is unimportant. To the family it was, and that's why it happened. He understands and it's sad, but life sucks sometimes. He and they went along roads which can never meet.