Lately, I have been receiving even more comments than usual condemning me for daring to 'interfere in the culture' of the Ye'kwana people. Some commenters have been civil and I have posted their comments, others have been rude and down right cruel and I have not posted those comments.
I don't always post every comment that comes here. I regularly receive comments that call me a genocidal missionary that destroys indian culture. I have been accused of being a 'religious pollutant', an instigator of spiritual destruction, and hate monger, also, other names I will not repeat here.
But it does make me ponder...
Yes, I happen to believe in the Bible. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and I believe the Bible does call me personally to go forth and preach, teach and disciple those who have not heard. I believe that by sharing Christ, a culture will only change for the better. I feel that the hard work of the linguistic missionaries that break down a language and develop the alphabet in order to translate the Bible into these tongues are the ones who actually preserve the language and, thus, the culture. I believe education will only make any culture stronger!
I do not believe the Bible ever teaches us to forcibly 'convert' anyone to Christianity and that a person under such a 'conversion' would not even be a true Christian. I would be wasting my time.
Yes, I am guilty of believing Christ saves souls and changes lives! And even, worse, I believe tribal people should be educated, taught to read and allowed to be exposed to history, science, and the Bible. I believe that they are totally capable of making a knowledgeable decision on their own as to what they choose to believe. For I believe all men are created in the likeness of God, equally.
Every people group in this world is equal in intelligence and ability to progress. I think anyone who denies an entire people group this opportunity of progress is extremely arrogant and even a hypocrite! For these people treat tribal groups as if they are our 'children' or a specimen that we can study. They seem to feel that they are animals that belongs in a zoo so that we, the 'civilized', might learn from them of our own 'primitive' past. There is no justification for this type of arrogance!
These same ones who say I destroy cultures would have us leave the tribes to die of preventable diseases such as malaria, or to perhaps continue practicing destructive habits out of ignorance. It seems to me that the real genocidal agents are these 'elitists' who happily condemn people to a life of misery and an early death !
Most of these types are admittedly atheists and Darwinists. Isn't it hypocritical to believe in evolution and Survival of the Fittest and yet, want to isolate primitive tribes and not allow them to ' evolve' ( I would use the word 'progress') and partake of the fruits of our combined progress and the knowledge that the rest of us enjoy on a daily basis?
Why should these Darwinist feel that I am evil when I seem to be the one promoting progress and thus making the tribes more 'fit' in order that they might 'survive'?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
As i recall, you also brought much needed medical care and general info about hygiene and other things that helped preserve this race. Knowlege can only help them. You helped stabalize a group of peoples desperately needing to learn things about themselves as well as a God that loves them so much He gave himself for them. You and your family lived this every day, and thus made a huge lasting difference in their lives.
I dare say those condemning you have never spent a day, a tear, a sweat droplet, or anything to help these people. Yes, I believe your assesment of them as being "observation specimen" to them is a fair statement.
God have mercy on them, as they condemn you for following a calling to take life to those people!!
Keep doing your good work, jm. The naysayers know not of what they speak.
There never has been nor will there ever be an autochthonous people.
And better to be a warrior sewn from the dragon's teeth than a mermidon without an Achilles to lead him, especially if that Achilles happens to be Jesus. ;-)
If the Ye'kwana people didn't want you there, they would have made their intentions to you very clear.
These people who condemn you are the ignorant ones. There is nothing wrong with providing medical care when none is provided by their "government" or education (even a religious one). These people seem to believe that if a indigenous people are ignorant and dying of disease, then let them. Forget that they too were once an ignorant "savage" until someone came along and "civilized" them.
Offer them this the next time they condemn you. Tell them they can adopt the Ye'kwana way of life prior to the visits of missionaries like yourself for 5 years, then they can criticize you all they want.
I can bet you the moon that not one of them will take you up on it. For they do not want to give up their comfortable, moonbat life for even 1 day.
Well said, Rita! I heartily agree. Eternity will tell who it is that truly served the Ye'kwana people - those who showed them the light, or those who would have kept them in darkness.
You said it the best, when you called them for their arrogance, their intention to keep other, different peoples down. Indeed as if in a zoo.
They are pathetic, and sadly, they know it. Misery loves company, JMom.
I am very sorry you are getting these comments, Rita. I think the posters need to go back and look at the Spanish conquest of South America and then compare that to a couple of missionaries who GAVE UP EVERYTHING OUT OF LOVE to serve people. And yes, bring Jesus to them.
Sorry again, Rita. :[
Beautiful thinking, Rita...this says it all.
I, too, am sorry for the nasty things that have been said.
You make such good sense in this post I can't imagine people disagreeing with you.
I admire you so much.
Well said, Rita. And that's all you can do. People are going to believe what they want to believe and there's nothing you or we can do about it. Only the Holy Spirit can convict and convert. We can pray for that.
I also don't publish all comments when I sense they are mean spirited.
John 14:6 answers the question of Missions for me.
I do disagree with you about certain people’s intelligence. There is a place in the USA where the intelligence is automatically lowered. There is also something there that dissolves the spine. The District of Colombia has less intelligent, less aware people that work there. Must be the water.
HTOITA
Tell 'em to get stuffed and move on. You're too busy doing the Lord's work to pay any attention to nitwits.
the Bible is a revolutionary book...it will bring change...it always has.
kw
You live for an audience of ONE who has set eternity in your heart...keep pressing on!
My father in law would have beat them about the head and shoulders. He was an old testament Christian, the kind I can relate to. After he left the Marine Corps, he spent the rest of his life , save a few years at the end, as a Baptist missionary in Niger and Nigeria. He did a lot of good. I don't think he would have given a Tinkers d**n for these people who are giving you flak. They just sit on their well polished rear ends in some comfortable office and belch out a lot of nonsense. Who cares what they think? I still think you should go to a restricted blog, you don't have to let these insects annoy you with their buzzing.
Many people fear and hate those who think differently.
People have free will and You taught them many things,and they taught you many things.I am sure that nothing was taught that did not stand upon the values of charity and faith.
Those who insist that others think just like they do are on the negative slope of point 6 of the Enneagram.People who write to criticize you and insult you are most likely trapped in this kind of negativity: fear of differences.
In its positive form, dogmatic criticism can become loyalty.
May they find peace.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Leaves NO room for doubt as to what God want us to do.
Don't let the nasty people get you down with their comments. Enjoy deleting them and go about your work.
You are called and are answering the higher power, I'm thinking the Lord is pretty well pleased with you work. As far as the Darwinists and atheists......you'll get them sooner or later! ;-)
I recall watching a "forgotten tribe" show on Travel Channel several years ago. They showed the everyday lives of the tribal people (I think it was in Papua New Guinea) and said that "the major threats to their lifestyle were the modern culture and missionaries".
I guess the producers of the show never thought they were any threat to the tribes lifestyle with their modern clothes and electronics!
Rev 5:9 ...for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
yes keep on doing the Lord's work.
What do you mean by "Darwinist"? Is it people who do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis story?
What has this story to do with evolution?
Perhaps it is that the ones who criticized you for going there also know some Baptists in the South of the US reject evolution but it does not mean the majority, who know evolution is part of life, want to expel you from the jungle.
I think Indians should get access to all kinds of information, of course, and they should choose. I think they should get the Bible and also Darwin's works and a Short History of Nearly Everything and why not? Even if I am a capitalist I think they should read Das Kapital if interested. Have you read it?
Can you all tell me if you think evolution is a lie?
If so: have you ever studied genetics, geology, physics?
I mean not through a brochure from some rural church.
Do you think dinosaurs were running around people?
Do you know how the DNA transmission mechanisms work? About mutations? Rate of mutations? Do you really think Chinese and Pemon and English appeared because of Babel as described in the Bible, out of the blue, in one day, two? Or was it only Old English and Latin that diverged from Hebrew in a jiffy?
And what about Hebrew and Arabic?
Do any of you have some knowledge about both languages? Akkadian? Do you know why they are similar and yet not quite? How long did it take for them to split? How long does it imply people were living there?
How long did it take for people in some regions to get blue eyes or green eyes or slanted eyes?
How long did it take for white people and some African groups like the Dinka to develop lactose loterance?
And what does the Bible imply when you start counting the time between X BEGOT Y up to David?
Have you made the counting? I did, when I was a child. A lot of people have done the calculates of the Bible. That is why the Conservative Jews think the Earth is less than 7000 years old, completely ignoring science.
Do you know how long humans have been living outside Africa?
Do you know when and how they colonized the Americas?
I mean: do you read scientific books not coming from your pastor or your basic school?
Kepler
Dear Kepler,
I responded to commenters who were 'preaching' atheism to me and accusing me for teaching religion to indians and stunting their evolution, and I merely turned the tables on them.
This post was not about evolution, I was using their own words from comments which I did not post but they know what I am speaking of.
Also, many baptists and others in the northern states also believe the Genesis account and I am uncomfortable with your constant belittlement of southerners in the US.
Yes, I believe in creation as given in Genesis, and you know that. I do read other positions on the subject, I just do not agree with it.
I have Christian frineds with whom I disagree but they, nor I, are so militant as to fight over this one subject at every draw. I find your religious fervor in regards to evolution to be interesting.
Of all that was in my last two posts, the one subject you choose to defend is evolution.
Firstly: you would be equating "Darwinists" with them.
Also, the thing is the implications of a "literal" translation of the Bible has very strong implications.
You are saying thus that around 2136BC, Abraham was born, some years more or less and that, according to counting back the X begot Y. And that the creation would have taken place 1,948 years before that. But that would contradict everything we know about biology, geology and a lot more.
Also, a literal translation would imply Noah was on a boat swimming on a bulk of water 5,137 metres above the level of, say, Tel Aviv, as the Ararat is at 5,137 metres high. And we know now the Earth is round, so it would mean at least 5,137 metres of water were covering the Earth less than 6 thousand years ago (let's suppose for a moment the Himalayas or Andes were not considered as part of the inhabited Earth)
It would also imply the blacks and the Indians and the Chinese all come from Noah's people, thus less than 6 thousand years ago all that happened and all our mutations took place.
And it would imply dinosaurs were not dead many millions of years ago and nothing of the genetic data we can read in every animal is true. Is it some devil's concoction?
It would also imply virtually most of physics is plainly wrong.
And so much more we know could not happen (like half a million walking in line across the Sinai etc).
The repercussions of believing all that without taking into account the framework in which the Bible was written are very dangerous and they would reflect in every aspect of life, they are not just a minor theological diatribe.
And I believe that weakens the position of Christians, as it would show people who simply negate science. Many Christians, not only me, do not share that view and we consider it very counterproductive and that is why I have voiced that strongly.
As I said, for me, else there should be access to Indians and the other way around, provided just some precautions (on avoiding the spread of diseases for which some groups have not developed defence)
Kepler
kepler,
Two different commenters of late, one from the UK and one from Canada, have been accusing me being in the wrong for interfering among the Ye'kwana by teaching against, rape of women, burial of live children, abandonment of the sick and elderly as this is their culture and part of the evolutionary process. That Darwin would agree with the killing off of the weak...bla bla,bla which is why I phrased the last two paragraphs directly to them and in this manner.
I do not know what Darwin would have had to say about the subject.
I do not want to get into this same old argument about evolution as it is pointless. I have read and studied and drawn a different conclusion than you. Y que?
I appreciate your humanity and you as a person, but I just don't agree with your ideology in regards to some things.
I see...
This is interesting, speciaialy the second page
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution_2.html
Actually, Darwin would not have agreed on that, but then one has to read Darwin and not let minister prohibit or restrict one's reading. A new world would open up to one who wants to read real scientific books, not act from digested material.
Christians should look for science, not avoid it.
Cheers,
Kepler
kepler,
I have read Darwin. No minister tells me what I can and can not read. I read many thing with which I do not agree but want to know why others may agree. ( Today I read some of Noam Chomsky, who is ridiculous, but I want to know what he says)
I fully embrace the right to question anything and everything, Discovery is very rewarding. I do not ever wish to close myself or anyone else into a box. I happen to find it ironic that many who claim to be open minded are themselves very narrow minded in certain regards. We all approach data and input from our own biases.
I believe the Biblical account and find many things in Science which to me reveal the hand of the Creator.
I am curios why you find this subject to be so important and why you seems compelled to change my belief when clearly, you will not. It seems to be almost a private mandate for you to convince me of evolution.
"Private mandate"...it seems as if you think this is some satanic mandate. No, it is not. Or do you mean some kind of communist party sending me? It is rather curiosity.
I am also interested because I want to understand better the way creationists think as they form a big part of both conservative US and conservative Muslim countries and their position has more consequences than some may think.
The arguments I hear seem to be over and over again the same arguments they were using as soon as Darwin exposed his ideas, as if they have completely forgotten to look at the huge amount of evidence that has been accumulated over a century and a half. I mean: every branch of natural science has to do with evolution or gives proofs of it in many ways.
It is like trying to understand someone who still thinks the Earth is flat (I suppose most creationists accept the idea now that the Earth is NOT flat because they have missionaries around the globe and they travel by plane and can see that it is definitely not flat)
"I believe the Biblical account"
What does that mean? Because I am also a Christian and I believe in the Bible. I
asked concretely about Noah's boat: do you think it was
more than 5500 metres above the current sea level? I.e. do you believe less than 10 thousand years ago there was so much water all around the Earth that everything was covered? (and I don't mean over 60 million years ago)
Do you believe everything we have found about mutations and how they work is some trick put there by God to try us between evolution OR (XOR, exclusive OR)
Christianity?
Do you sincerely believe there was only one language after 5000 BC and approximately 3000 BC?
Thus, that such languages as Hurrite and Akkadian and Sumerian
and proto-Indoeuropean (all from different family branches, also different from our Indo-European branch)
all came from the same stuff just shortly before?
And when did your Indian ancestors arrive in the Americas?
Before Christ's birth or afterward?
And the black in Senegal, when did they arrive there?
And the Pygmies in Congo?
And the first Australians?
I find it strange people cling to such an interpretation of the Bible (which implies the Earth is less than 7 or so thousand years) in the United States, a country with so much money, the very same country where one can find MIT and CalTech.
It mystifies me.
Well, forget it. I was trying to see if the absolute resistance was based at one point on the fear of all beliefs crumbling down if evolution is accepted or if it was lack of access to certain sources of information (after Darwin: I mean a lot of genetics, physics, geology and so on). I reckon it may be a combination, but more the first part as the US does have the resources to find things out.
something from my brother mark who is well versed and studied in this area:
Mark W Duhon wrote
at 10:35am
Darwinists believe in spontaneous generation, but they've recast it as "abiogenesis" to make such silliness sound 'scientific.' The origin of life kills all naturalistic theories - "Life only comes from life" is a principle solidified through the experiments of Louis Pasteur. George Gaylord Simpson said Pasteur proved as conclusively as science can prove the bedrock scientific law of biogenesis
kw
Elephants Child,
Thanks for your kind words.
Chris,
Pasteur proved something else. It is tiring to discuss this if you do not know the basics of science to begin with, if you think science is based on the work of one single scientist 150 years ago. I can list some of the known errors or doubts from such guys as Einstein, Koch and, yes, Darwin.
It is about the accumulated knowledge that we make science with.
It seems over 150 years of science have passed without you getting to read much about it from other than the eyes of some people with a politcal-religious agenda.
You always depart from your belief the Earth is just some few thousand years old, which is something completely opposed to physics, geology and many other branches of science.
We are not talking about life appearing out of the blue (autogenesis) every single day or century or thousand years, we are not taking about autogenesis at all, we are talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
If you have no idea about how mutations really work, if you have not read the latest (say, 20 years time) of what natural selection entails or how the genetic material is processed,
that is, if you did not have any of that well taught at school,
how DNA recombination takes places
and how many mutations actually do happen within just some generations, no wonder you believe the Earth is just less than 7 thousand years old.
You can find this book almost everywhere:
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/0767908171
It is fun, it is well written and it is not just about evolution.
If you want to find out what a brilliant Christian scientist think, read The Language of God.
I end it here. Cheers
Kepler
"You always depart from your belief the Earth is just some few thousand years old, which is something completely opposed to physics, geology and many other branches of science"
It's only opposed to physics, geology and many other branches of science if you discount the fact that nearly EVERY SINGLE ANCIENT culture has a Flood narrative... Gosh, do you think that's a coincidence? Must be.
Just tell em' to get lost JM. Perhaps they can go and spew their anger and hatred at the Islamists spreading their religion by violence and murder throughout the world. But i doubt they'd have the balls.
Elephantschild,
And why are there still differences in the creation stories of the world? Is that "un-coincidence"?
Some things reflect events that are bound to have happened to some extent in almost every part of the world and some of them are floods (but for such places as the Poles floods are major events in almost every area).
Some of the traditions about flooding come from stories based on some element of truth, but that does not mean the stories are to be taken literally.
Consider Mount Arafat, Mount Everest, Mount McKenzie, etc.
Do you think they were all covered by water less than 7 thousand years ago, meaning everything back then was several kilometers under water?
By simple geometry, you would have to conclude the lowest place on Earth was covered by at least as much water as needed to cover the highest mountain, unless some major cathaclism reshaped it all less than 7000 years ago (meaning mountains rising in such time).
Do you think so?
There are signs of many floods throughout the Earth's history everywhere, but nothing where the whole Earth was covered with water 5, 6, 10 thousand years ago or even 100000 years ago. That would leave traces.
Also, read down here on hypothesis of floods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
The Earth was covered by water a long time ago but that was way before the Homo sapiens had appeared at all. Because of that and the tectonic movements over millions of years you have what we know as fossils.
As I said, that does not change the core and message of the Bible.
Many traditions, some going way back before the Israelis
were a people, have some stories
that tell about a figure like Moses. Does that mean there was a pre-Moses? Some points can be true, some are part of a myth.
Sargon (Akkad king, founder of Akkadian kingdom) became cup bearer, he was set in a basket as a child to be saved, put on a river and so on.
Also, check the Genographic Project and the implications thereof.
If you have more comments, just send me an email at desarrollo.sostenible.venezuela AT gmail.com
Kepler
"That would leave traces."
It sure would. I'll just let that stand, I think.
VDMA
Proverbs 4:
"Don't turn your back on wisdom, for she will protect you. Love her, and she will guard you.
Getting wisdom is the most important thing you can do! And whatever else you do, get good judgment.
If you prize wisdom, she will exalt you. Embrace her and she will honor you.
She will place a lovely wreath on your head; she will present you with a beautiful crown."
------------------------------
Science should not install you fear.
Indeed there are no traces of floods that would have covered the whole world 10000 years ago, only MILLIONS of years ago or "smaller ones" a la New Orleans (we did not get that here in Old Europe), in spite of what some films developed by some local churches may tell you.
Now, Elephantschild, could you answer concrete questions?
Was what is now Washington or Miami or Savanah covered less than 7000 years ago by 7000+ meters of water for several months? Can you calculate the amount of water that entails? Do you know that is much more water than what there is in the oceans and skies now? Where is the proof that water was there less than 7 thousand years ago?
When do you think dark skin or white skin or blue eyes developed?
Do you know something about how DNA works? Do you know we can see several dozen mutations per generation? (thus, you have several mut
Do you think dinosaurs were running next to humans?
I wonder when I will find the first scientist who is a creationist (as in humans were created just a few thousand years ago and did not evolve from other species).
Interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Kepler
ROFLOL. You mis-interpreted my post.
VDMA
Post a Comment