Man Martyred; Facebook Erupts in Anti-Christian Hatred

A sad picture of the world we live in, especially online.

By Tom Gilson Published on November 21, 2018

The BBC has reported Wednesday on an American man killed on North Sentinel Island. “Tribespeople shot him with arrows and left his body on the beach.” He may have been a Christian missionary, according to the BBC: “Local media have reported that Chau may have wanted to meet the tribe to preach Christianity to them.”

The people of North Sentinel Island are one of the last isolated ethnic groups on earth. The Indian government forbids any visitors to the island, and natives routinely greet strangers with violence.

Cruel Hatred

Be that as it may, the way Facebook erupted over the incident is nothing short of stunning. The BBC’s post on it had 5,600 comments under it just seven hours after publication. The anti-Christian tone runs cruel. Here’s a sample:

  • Haha good riddance. Leave them alone.
  • God acts in mysterious ways… <GRIN><GRIN><GRIN><GRIN>
  • They sent him to Jesus… we must be happy about it.
  • I can but hope he was an American Evangelical.
  • They nipped that s**t right in the bud!
  • I wish all indigenous cultures did this. They may have survived.
  • Honestly not even sad about this. Gosh however has this tribe survived so long without jesus in their hearts <GLOAT>
  • We should have done that here!

(The words inside “< >” are text translations of emojis.)

I ran a sample of comments, choosing 100 selected randomly out of the first 750 or so (it’s beastly hard to get to large numbers of Facebook comments). The blatant, laughing cruelty you see above showed up in about 1 out of 8 comments in that sample. It’s probably a good representation of the whole. 

Two-thirds of comments expressed smug satisfaction over the man’s death. One out of eight was outright cruel.

Smug Satisfaction

Two-thirds of all comments expressed smug satisfaction over the man’s death. Examples:

  • Why can’t we respect another human and their choice of life. What do you get? Keep your believes to yourself and God.
  • Why didn’t his god protect him?
  • Imagine that, another self righteous “christian” goes where he is not wanted or needed and in fact has been told to leave it alone, and something bad happens. And these people will be feared now when they are the ones who are scared·
  • How come his god didn’t protect him? Hm
  • Should have minded his own business.
  • They have done what he says: they sent him to heaven

About a quarter of the comments echoed the “mind your own business” theme you see in some of the above.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

This wasn’t on some atheist website, mind you, where that kind of attitude is likely to be over-represented. This was on the BBC’s Facebook page.

It’s another picture of the world we live in, especially online. They accuse Christians of hatred, then this kind of thing happens. 

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • SkyGirl315

    It’s a combo of two things I think. People want to cling to moral relativism and “what’s right for isn’t right for others” and they’re always eager to bring up past mistakes. It’s way too common to see things thrown around about the European settlement of the Americas and tribes being wiped out and subjugated etc. People really need to see that we don’t think like that today and that using faith as an excuse to kill and force people off their land doesn’t make a true believer.

    • Robert

      I think it’s called “presentism”, I may not have said that right but it’s basically when we try to judge others in the past by our values or standards from today.

  • Ken Abbott

    What a difference 62 years make. I doubt the news of the deaths of Jim Elliot, Ed McCully, Roger Youderian, Pete Fleming, and Nate Saint was received with such attitudes.

  • John D. Ferrer

    There’s a kind of semi-real/semi-artificial dimension of online society where people express only exaggerated versions of themselves – they say things online that they’d never say to someone in person, but they still mean what they’re saying. And onlookers cannot help but think these exaggerations are normal, authentic expressions. It’s like an online costume ball where not everyone realizes it’s a costume ball.

  • What you are seeing is the dark hearts of people whose only strength lies in saying tough things online. They are the most desiccated of all creatures.

  • Patmos

    The tribesmen who did this are murderers, as are the people cheering this on Twitter/Facebook or wherever. That is the judgement they will face. Dumb fools don’t even know what’s coming, they are the ones Peter described as made to be destroyed.

    • swordfish

      “they are the ones Peter described as made to be destroyed.”

      An all-loving God creates people just to be destroyed, yet Christianty is supposed to be a plausible system of belief?

      • Sumerian King

        Swordfish,

        What is the point of you being here? Looking at your previous comments, you’re simply another faceless, cowardly troll lurking in the comment sections of websites devoted to beliefs you obviously don’t believe in. Do you have so little to do in life you have to find some bizarre semblance of satisfaction by arguing with Christians online?

        • swordfish

          I was brought up as a Christian and have become aware of the negative influence it has had on me, so it’s important to me personally to question it. I’m also concerned that my kids are growing up in a world where our hard-won scientific knowledge is under constant attack. If you don’t want to read my comments, you don’t have to. As to me being a “faceless, cowardly troll”, I note that you aren’t using your real name.

          This is a public forum so you should expect pushback from people who disagree with what is posted on here.

          • davidrev1911

            “I’m also concerned that my kids are growing up in a world where our hard-won scientific knowledge is under constant attack.”

            Once again, in true logically incoherent form at that, you’re conflating “epistemological” claims unique to a “this-worldly” scientific enterprise – of which operates under the rigorously imposed, smoke-and-mirrors philosophical [or metaphysical] approach called Methodological Naturalism in the first place, that’s “brought TO the table of scientific inquiry” in strict a priori fashion – with those “ontological” concepts surrounding the existence of a Creator God etc., typically associated with the philosophical arguments in this academic arena.

            One simply can’t have it both ways, if one hopes to present their metaphysical opinions in a forthrightly compelling [i.e., logical/rational] frame of reference. BTW: A Happy Thanksgiving Holiday blessing is extended to you and your loved ones! Shalom!

          • swordfish

            Perhaps if you simplified your point I’d be able to understand it. As it is, with a 71 word first sentence, I’m lost. Regarding your Thanksgiving wishes, I don’t celebrate it as I’m in the UK, but thank you, and the same to you and your loved ones.

          • he means that you cannot have a standard for anything and ascribe any value to things without God.

          • swordfish

            Then he should have just said that, although it would be obviously wrong because I have standards but don’t believe in God, and so do billions of other people.

          • swordfish

            Then he should have just said that, although it would be obviously wrong because I have standards but don’t believe in God, and so do billions of other people.

          • This is a complex subject.

            you have no foundation for anything without God so you clearly have no standards. No, “whatever appeals to my ego” is not a standard.

            Billions are damned and not only that they are clueless to the point of self-destruction.

            If even 2% of people escape being sent to the pit, that would be a generous figure.

          • swordfish

            “No, “whatever appeals to my ego” is not a standard.”

            Moral standards can be based on anything, such as generating the greatest human wellbeing. Who says that a human-derived standard isn’t a standard?

            “Billions are damned and not only that they are clueless to the point of self-destruction. If even 2% of people escape being sent to the pit, that would be a generous figure.”

            If God knows in advance that 98% of people are going to hell, then he’s evil.

          • Again, basing things on your ego is not a standard. especially when you claim morality is whatever is convenient to you.

            No, it means you are evil and do not understand free will.

          • swordfish

            Late reply: We have standards for almost everything – railway line guages, electrical safety, weight measurements – I could go on all day. None of these are ‘absolute’ standards rooted in God, so I don’t see any reason why standards of behaviour should be absolute.

          • Did this message bother you that much? Did you also REALLY have to waste my time by saying that because God did not set a standard for modern utilities, that there is no Absolute Truth?

          • swordfish

            If you don’t want me to respond, maybe don’t call me ‘evil’ next time. And you’re still *absolutely* wrong.

          • But you are evil, also absurd as you reject Absolute Truth.

          • davidrev1911

            The point couldn’t be made any more clearly my friend!

            Plus, since I refuse to intellectually “spoon-feed” you in this critically relevant area foundational to many, or most of your posts here on the Stream I’ve encountered – maybe it’s high-time you began to dig-much-deeper in thoughtful “worldview” studies, in hopes of acquiring a much greater understanding as to just “why” I’m making this point?

            And may the “God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ,” richly bless your humble heartfelt inquiry into this very important subject.

          • swordfish

            I’ve watched hours of Frank Turek’s lectures on YouTube. His arguments are lame, and he spreads misinformation about evolution. I’m not going to waste my time reading his books when I’ve already seen his arguments debunked.

            As for you being unable to simplify your point, there must be something wrong if you can’t reduce a sentence below 71 words. Dialing back on the pretentiousness might help.

          • davidrev1911

            Then maybe you’ll be able to “see” the essence of Turek’s “Stealing From God,” through studying the world-renowned emeritus professor of analytic philosophy, Alvin Plantinga’s still-valid, “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism,” or EAAN? And it’s still not been refuted, or dismantled!

            (BTW: Studying Alvin Plantinga’s [2011] “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism” [Oxford Univ. Press], would go a long way in educating yourself about your own wholly faith-based worldview – of which is largely untethered from reality in the first place.)

            After all, you’re nowhere near as wise & intelligent as you try and pass-yourself-off to be in these matters – particularly when displaying your obvious ignorance in the areas of epistemology & ontology.

            You’re just volitionally intransigent when it comes to hearing anything with which you’re already in rabid, “a priori” vehement disagreement. (Sorta like: “my mind is already made-up, so don’t confuse me with the facts.”)

            And if that sort of cognitive gymnastics ain’t a textbook example of one consciously exercising one’s FREE WILL – then there ain’t no such thing as FREE WILL…only mind-numbing mindless expressions, like “my amygdala made me do it” etc.

            Yet, “Facts are stubborn things…”

          • swordfish

            In reverse(ish) order:

            “You’re just volitionally intransigent when it comes to hearing anything with which you’re already in rabid, “a priori” vehement disagreement.”

            Wrong. I used to believe in God, was a Christian, and assumed that there must be valid arguments to demonstrate the existence of God. It’s only over a very long time that I’ve come to realise that there isn’t actually any evidence at all that God exists, that Christianity is a confused mess of immoral nonsense, and that the various “sophisticated theology” arguments are all little more than word-games and self-referential tricks.

            “After all, you’re nowhere near as wise & intelligent as you try and pass-yourself-off to be in these matters – particularly when displaying your obvious ignorance in the areas of epistemology & ontology.”

            Have you heard of projection? It seems to me that the one out of us two who is trying to pass himself/herself off as wise and intelligent is the one using terms like “volitionally intransigent”.

            “Alvin Plantinga’s still-valid, “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism,” or EAAN? And it’s still not been refuted, or dismantled!”

            Not been refuted? That’s a matter of opinion. I’m aware of Plantinga’s arguments, and I’m not impressed. As usual, all he’s doing is dressing up a series of assertions to make it look like the end result is a logical argument, when really it’s assertions all the way down. I quote Jerry Coyne on Plantinga: “theology is not an honest attempt to find the truth, but a post facto rationalization of what the theologian already believes”

            Back to the end: “Yet, “Facts are stubborn things…””

            Yes, and there are none that provide any plausible evidence that a god exists.

          • davidrev1911

            You curiously stated:

            “Not been refuted? That’s a matter of opinion. I’m aware of Plantinga’s arguments, and I’m not impressed. As usual, all he’s doing is dressing up a series of assertions to make it look like the end result is a logical argument, when really it’s assertions all the way down. I quote Jerry Coyne on Plantinga: “theology is not an honest attempt to find the truth, but a post facto rationalization of what the theologian already believes”

            (Perhaps you’d be kind enough to direct us to your OWN academic peer-review body-of-work, not to mention any other reputable academic source(s), which would nicely confirm such wild speculation?)

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            Also, your mind-bogglingly quoting a militant evangelical atheist like Jerry Coyne – of whom is a scientist to begin with – in hopes of certifiably dismissing the work of “one of the most highly regarded analytic moral/religious philosophers during the last 50-years or so” [Theology included!], once again clearly demonstrates your [not to mention Coyne’s] cluelessness re: the distinctions between epistemological & ontological claims, in this war of philosophical worldviews raging throughout the West.

            (Plus, your persistent rejection, a priori, of any sort of information of which doesn’t comport with the tightly constrained philosophical comfort-zone in which your conscious “free-will” operates – for starters, can you say often being guilty of committing the “Genetic Fallacy” and/or majoring in Ad-hominem strategies when dialoguing with others here on the Stream – only underscores the image you beautifully exude in these matters of philosophical debate, i.e., meaning that of a “one-armed man trying to row a boat”!)

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            “I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.”

            — The late Nobel laureate theoretical physicist, Dr. Richard P. Feynman.

            “Some atheists are quite explicit that their atheism comes first. One of the most famous is Dr. Richard Lewontin, [an emeritus] professor of genetics [at Harvard], who said it wasn’t science that compelled him to accept a materialistic explanation of the universe. It was an a priori materialism.”

            — “Christian” mathematician & philosopher of science at Oxford, Dr. John Lennox.

            “Not every statement by a scientist is a statement of science.”

            — John Lennox

            “What [the late atheist] Stephen Hawking says in his [2011] book The Grand Design, is the universe exists because it needed to exist, and because it needed to exist, it therefore created itself. His conclusion merely restates his premise, which means his argument is circular. Nonsense is still nonsense, even when spoken by famous scientists.”

            — John Lennox

            “Nature is all there is or was or ever will be…”

            — The late atheist astrophysicist/cosmologist, Dr. Carl Sagan

            (BTW: Sagan’s purely metaphysical opinion, ironically, is strangely THE foundational philosophical principle, or guiding-light, for ALL scientific inquiry, i.e., Methodological Naturalism – or “Methodological Atheism” – otherwise referred to as “philosophy masquerading as science.”)

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            You said:

            “Wrong. I used to believe in God, was a Christian, and assumed that there must be valid arguments to demonstrate the existence of God. It’s only over a very long time that I’ve come to realise that there isn’t actually any evidence at all that God exists, that Christianity is a confused mess of immoral nonsense, and that the various “sophisticated theology” arguments are all little more than word-games and self-referential tricks.”

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            Aahhh yes…spoken like Almighty God himself!

            Once again, kindly provide the “evidence-based” information certifiably demonstrating your opinions, as well as the evidence confirming the NON-existence for the Biblical Creator “Yahweh” exemplifying an eternally self-existent Spirit-Being, of whom is also personal, transcendent [i.e.,omnipresent], and the “Uncaused First Cause” of ALL that exists within this “contingently existing universe.”

            All of whose Self-revealed characteristics, by the way, have been grudgingly inferred, or tacitly acknowledged by atheistic materialists’ like the late Stephen Hawking etc., through the ongoing research in our current “Standard Model of Physics” for well-over 60-years now. [Also, please see “IBE” arguments in the historical sciences, or Abductive Reasoning.]

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction [or “evidence”/ NKJV] of things not seen. For by it [faith] the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” [i.e., “Creation Ex-nihilo,” or “Big Bang Cosmology.”]

            “By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.”

            “And without faith it is impossible to please him [God], for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Hebrews 11:1-6/ ESV – emphasis mine of course.)

            “Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were [actually ever] of us.” (1 John 2:18-19/NKJV – my emphasis again. See also, in this context, Paul’s exhortation in Acts 20:25-32.)

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            That last biblical quote in 1 John 2:18-19, was given as a necessary corrective to your personal testimony as representing some type of “former Christian”; which, by the way, is much like declaring one’s self to be a former human being. You were tragically self-deceived somewhere along-the-line my friend? For what do you do with those examples of former atheists, who ultimately commit to biblical Christianity for the duration of their natural lives?

            For a quick example, I mean people such as the UK’s own ultra-brilliant C.S. Lewis; or former atheist/molecular biophysicist, now world-class Christian Theologian, Oxford’s Dr. Alister McGrath, [3 PhD’s]? Or what about the former ultra-brilliant rabid atheist [for over 40-years], Anthony Flew, who’d ultimately repudiated his own atheism [for some form of Deism] before his death in 2010; see his [2007] “There Is A God,” whose alarming conversion was apparently based upon the “implications” of current scientific evidence alone – namely from cosmology to molecular biology?

          • swordfish

            Did I touch a nerve? Your reply is just one long, blustering argument from authority. I don’t care how highly regarded Plantinga is; the many other names you’re so keen on dropping; or how many worthless PhDs they have. All arguments for God fail because they’re based on false premises. And there isn’t any evidence for God from cosmology, molecular biology, or any other field of science, which can be easily ascertained by noting that no fields of science have concluded that God exists, and that fewer scientists than non-scientists are theists.

          • davidrev1911

            As I suspected, it all went right over your head! It’s truly amazing to watch, or read people squirm when confronted with God’s truth – since “all truth is God’s truth” anyway. You simply respond to me and so many others’ comments, with emotionally-laden emptiness – which is exactly the essence of your nihilistic/meaningless worldview.

            And your errant comment about “touching a nerve,” only serves to confirm what’s been said by me et al. already; because I’ve had to wait until the holiday traffic and responsibilities slowed down sufficiently, until I had the available time to write what was on my heart to you – and there was plenty more too – aka genuine heartfelt concern, empathy etc. for your current self-professed, downward eternal trajectory.

          • swordfish

            “As I suspected, it all went right over your head!”

            The fact that I’m not impressed by your arguments-from-authority doesn’t mean I don’t understand said arguments. I see absolutely no sign of any ‘mind’ working in nature, but my view isn’t nihilistic, nor am I on a downward trajectory. The view from here is endless and fascinating.

          • davidrev1911

            Since you’ve still clearly failed to grasp the obvious “implications” of what’s being presented to you on this thread, I’ll try and distill the essence of these either/or issues for you:

            One either believes, by faith alone, that “Mindless” mass/energy [or dead/inanimate matter] represents ultimate reality – or one believes, again by faith alone, that “Mind” represents, or depicts ultimate reality to we rational/moral “conscious observers” called Homo sapiens.

            Now, the Judeo-Christian Scriptures obviously reveal the latter option throughout its content, while you seem to stringently believe in the former…by faith alone. So just for starters, in prayerful hopes you might grasp what’s being debated here, please provide the purely MATERIALISTIC “scientific” hypothesis – through strict Methodological Naturalism – for the ORIGIN, thus existence for all [or even some] of the following metaphysical “realities,” of which correctly correspond to “the way things really are” to we rational/moral conscious observers in nature:

            “Just HOW did nature go DIGITAL”? Or what is the materialistic “source-origin” for “complex-specified information” found, or clearly inferred throughout nature, and not only in all carbon-based “life’s” biological processes either? And what about the incomprehensibly “finely-tuned” aspects of nature’s “constants & quantities” – found throughout this known-universe in both physics and chemistry??

            Then we experience the realities of reason; logic; truth; morality; beauty; numbers; art; poetry; music; thus mind itself – i.e., meaning the perennially “hard problem of consciousness” [or cognition] – or even human language, plus the “origin” of this universe & life itself…just to name several areas of which remain scientific mysteries as I write this?

            Also, while you’re at it, please unravel [scientifically] the ongoing mystery re: the ORIGIN of nature’s “laws” too – upon which nature itself beautifully operates, or consistently functions? And finally, please explain why rational/moral Homo sapiens’ have long-been able to construct a compelling “ethical foundation for science” – yet we’re still clueless when it comes to constructing a valid, “scientific foundation for ethics,” or morality?

            Hopefully you’ll begin to recognize that a non-physical personal “Mind” not only behind, but throughout nature, represents an eminently superior “scientific” hypothesis as a “source-origin” for ALL of the foregoing realities we regularly experience in nature – not to mention practical as well – than that of a dead/inanimate “mindless/unintelligent” nature, that just accidentally gave-rise to all these still-mysterious realities we regularly recognize?

          • swordfish

            “complex-specified information”

            Depends what you mean by information. The arrangement of DNA is the product of evolution.

            “And what about the incomprehensibly “finely-tuned” aspects of nature’s “constants & quantities” – found throughout this known-universe in both physics and chemistry??”

            Fine tuning can be explained by either: there being a multiverse, the apparent fine-tuning being actually a consequence of deeper or currently unknown laws, or that such fine-tuning isn’t really finely-tuned at all. Fine-Tuning is more of a problem for theists because why would God be limited by physical reality such that he has to fine-tune it?

            “Then we experience the realities of reason; … hard problem of consciousness”

            I’d say consciousness has evolved and is actually a consequence of our brains not having enough processing power to be able to process all our sense information at once, hence us having to ‘consciously’ focus our attention, and also because our brains have evolved general-purpose computing abilities. Animals like cats seem to me to be conscious, so I assume that conscious exists on a continuum from no consciousness to human consciousness, so there can’t be some hard cutoff where it starts.

            “Also, while you’re at it, please unravel the ongoing mystery re: the ORIGIN of nature’s “laws””

            If you mean a scientific ‘theory of everything’, we don’t have one yet, but neither do theists, because “God did it” isn’t an explanation.

            “yet we’re still clueless when it comes to constructing a valid, “scientific foundation for ethics,” or morality”

            That fact is neatly illustrated by the obviously man-made, flawed morality of the Old Testament, in which slavery, conquest rape and genocide are either condoned or commanded. Ethics isn’t a scientific problem, but we have constructed secular ethical systems like humanism.

            “Hopefully you’ll begin to recognize that a non-physical personal “Mind” not only behind, but throughout nature…”

            I don’t know what a non-physical mind is supposed to be. Minds require a brain.

            “for ALL of the foregoing realities we regularly experience in nature”

            I don’t see how you can know how regular the universe is when there’s no other universe to compare it to?

          • swordfish

            In reverse(ish) order:

            “You’re just volitionally intransigent when it comes to hearing anything with which you’re already in rabid, “a priori” vehement disagreement.”

            Wrong. I used to believe in God, I was a Christian, and assumed that there must be valid arguments to demonstrate the existence of God. It’s only over a very long time that I’ve come to realise that there isn’t actually any evidence at all that God exists, that Christianity is a confused mess of immoral nonsense, and that the various “sophisticated theology” arguments are all little more than word-games and self-referential tricks.

            “After all, you’re nowhere near as wise & intelligent as you try and pass-yourself-off to be in these matters – particularly when displaying your obvious ignorance in the areas of epistemology & ontology.”

            Have you heard of projection? It seems to me that the one out of us two who is trying to pass himself off as wise and intelligent is the one using terms like “volitionally intransigent”.

            “Alvin Plantinga’s still-valid, “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism,” or EAAN? And it’s still not been refuted, or dismantled!”

            Not been refuted? That’s a matter of opinion. I’m aware of Plantinga’s arguments, and I’m not impressed. As usual, all he’s doing is dressing up a series of assertions to make it look like the end result is a logical argument, when really it’s assertions all the way down. I quote Jerry Coyne on Plantinga: “theology is not an honest attempt to find the truth, but a post facto rationalization of what the theologian already believes”

            Back to the end: “Yet, “Facts are stubborn things…””

            Yes, and there are none that provide any evidence that a god exists.

          • GLT

            “e spreads misinformation about evolution.”

            And that misinformation would be,…?

          • swordfish

            Off the top of my head, he claimed in one lecture that epigentics determines the overall body shape of organisms, which is just completely wrong. Maybe that was just a mistake, but all his claims about evolution are just well-known creationist talking points like ‘irreducible complexity’.

          • GLT

            “creationist talking points like ‘irreducible complexity’.”

            That’s not a talking point, it is a logical and demonstrable fact.

          • The Church created the sciences and the sciences can only exist within the Church.

            I assume you mean the gnostic dogma claiming to be “theory” that you passed off by media instead.

            I also assume the “negative influence” must be shame. No, you would be ashamed no matter what as that is well earned due to you doing evil.

          • Sumerian King

            If our hard-won scientific knowledge is under attack by anyone, it’s by people on your side of the religious and political isle who only enjoy using it if it is ideologically beneficial. For instance, those who want to claim “scientific and/or empirical fact,” and in the next breath talk about how gender is a “spectrum,” and males who identify as females (a biological impossibility) must be treated as such. The scientific and industrial revolutions, which give you the privilege to mock the beliefs of others online, was birthed from a formerly pagan Europe transformed by Judeo-Christian values and the power of the Gospel. In fact, scientific methodology, believe-it-or-not, was adopted from Scripture. (You should check-out Hugh Ross on Youtube who goes further into detail on this.)

            Anyway, yes, I suppose this is a “public forum,” but it’s on a website dedicated to conservative, Judeo-Christian principles and news. You’re not here to have a real, open-minded discussion; you’re here to troll. For instance, I’m not a person of the Hindu faith, and personally, I disagree with this belief-system, just as they disagree with mine. However, I don’t go on Hindu chat rooms and websites just to troll and start fights, because I have more respect for people than that, and I have a life where I don’t need to find satisfaction in mindlessly trolling the internet. I’m sorry your Christian upbringing didn’t suit you. I don’t know why that is, and I sincerely hope your heart will change. As for others, like myself, it was and is the difference between life and death, and radically changed me in a very positive way, just as it has for countless millions throughout history.

          • swordfish

            “If our hard-won scientific knowledge is under attack by anyone, it’s by people on your side of the religious and political isle…”

            I’m actually right-leaning.

            For instance, those who want to claim “scientific and/or empirical fact,” and in the next breath talk about how gender is a “spectrum,” and males who identify as females (a biological impossibility) must be treated as such.”

            Sex is binary, but gender *is* a spectrum, in the sense that it’s the social expression of our sexuality. For example, men and women dress differently due to societal norms, not due to biology.

            “Europe transformed by Judeo-Christian values”

            You mean Europe like Greece, which had a sophisticated culture before Christianity? It’s actually Judeo-Christian values which are based on instinctive human values, and freedom of speech, liberty, and democracy are not Judeo-Christian values.

            “In fact, scientific methodology, believe-it-or-not, was adopted from Scripture.”

            Not true.

            “You’re not here to have a real, open-minded discussion; you’re here to troll.”

            Few on here seem interested in real, open-minded discussions.

            “However, I don’t go on Hindu chat rooms and websites just to troll and start fights, because I have more respect for people than that, and I have a life where I don’t need to find satisfaction in mindlessly trolling the internet.”

            I don’t come here to start fights. Most of the time, I challenge articles directly, and only respond to comments directed at me. I too wouldn’t criticise Hindu peoples, but they’re not trying to tell me what I can and cannot do or say, by political interference.

          • Sumerian King

            “I’m actually right-leaning.”

            Fair enough.

            “Sex is binary, but gender *is* a spectrum, in the sense that it’s the social expression of our sexuality. For example, men and women dress differently due to societal norms, not due to biology.”

            While I understand what you’re saying, and there is some truth to it, this “spectrum” of gender and sexuality has been utilized as an instrument of war by increasingly radical “LGBT+(?)” activists trying to break-down the division between male and female. I know you probably don’t accept this division as Divinely sanctioned, but regardless, it’s still the truth. The more societies (mostly Western ones) disregard and dispose of God’s principles, the more they suffer in the home and the family. This is the reason the West has such low, unsustainable fertility rates. Furthermore, if I said it was the dream of left-wing political ideologues to have you and I and everyone else be androgynous, sexless beings with no sexual or gender distinctions, you’d probably chuckle. However, this is nothing but Marxism imposed on the human body. Just as they want everyone to be at the same economic level with no regard to talent, hard work, etc., there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t extend this mentality to people themselves. And the proof of this is evident in their “radical equality.”

            “You mean Europe like Greece, which had a sophisticated culture before Christianity? It’s actually Judeo-Christian values which are based on instinctive human values, and freedom of speech, liberty, and democracy are not Judeo-Christian values.”

            It depends on what your understanding of “sophisticated” culture is. See below:
            https://www.smithsonianmag….

            “Not true.”

            Did you look it up?

            “I don’t come here to start fights. Most of the time, I challenge articles directly, and only respond to comments directed at me. I too wouldn’t criticise Hindu peoples, but they’re not trying to tell me what I can and cannot do or say, by political interference.”

            You and I both know your comments are intentionally antagonistic and meant to invoke someone’s angry or upset reply. I could do the same thing at an atheist, agnostic, or non-Christian website, so you’re not the victim here. As far as Hindus are concerned, it’s merely a matter of demographics, friend. Go spend some time in India and see if they’re as tolerant of your dissenting views (especially under their current leadership). In the end, no matter what you say or think, the privileges you and I enjoy in our respective nations are the fruit of the Biblical values and principles that form the edifice of our societies (I saw elsewhere you’re from the UK. At any rate, my point still stands, as much of American piety was molded by the once god-fearing British who were world leaders in spreading the Gospel via their empire). If we eject God, so goes our blessing. I can assume you’ll argue otherwise, but an analysis of American and British culture from, say, the end of WWII to now, is an indictment in itself.

            EDIT: The link I posted above doesn’t look like it’s working. Anyway, it deals with human sacrifice in ancient Greek culture.

          • swordfish

            “gender and sexuality has been utilized as an instrument of war by increasingly radical “LGBT+(?)” activists”

            Yes, I agree that this kind of thing can be taken too far, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with LGBT people per se, and they should be protected from discrimination, in the same way that black people are.

            “The more societies (mostly Western ones) disregard and dispose of God’s principles, the more they suffer in the home and the family.”

            I think things are getting better, not worse. The past was often worse – go back only 50 years (using *very* rough dates) and black people suffered legal discrimination and segregation, go back 100 years and women weren’t allowed to vote, go back 200 years and slavery was legal, go back to Biblical times and we were stoning people to death for adultery. Even when I was young, unmarried mothers were treated like lepers. If you got into a time machine and tried to find a better time to live than today, you’d be struggling. (Unless you could go into the future.)

            “You and I both know your comments are intentionally antagonistic and meant to invoke someone’s angry or upset reply.”

            No, they most definitely are not. I’m antagonistic to religion, but not to individual religious believers. I have recieved far more hostile and rude replies than anything I have ever said, and I usually only end up arguing about factual topics like evolution anyway.

            “In the end, no matter what you say or think, the privileges you and I enjoy in our respective nations are the fruit of the Biblical values and principles that form the edifice of our societies”

            I totally disagree. Western societies are based on enlightenment values like freedom of speech, democracy, liberty, and equality. Christianity fights against all of these.

          • Sumerian King

            “Western societies are based on enlightenment values like freedom of speech, democracy, liberty, and equality. Christianity fights against all of these.”

            Liberal/enlightenment values are not contrary to Judeo-Christian ones. In fact, only a European continent shaped by Biblical values could give birth to such a movement of ideas. It is no accident the Western world gave birth to the United States Constitution, which enshrines values such these: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Ultimately, liberalism is shaped by Biblical principles and truth. There is no way modern nations like Saudi Arabia, or the coalition of the former USSR, could ever produce a document that could even stand in the shadow of this one. In no way, shape, or form does Christianity fight any of these; Christianity is the catalyst of them.

            Anyway, I understand we’re not going to convince one-another, but regardless, I’ve enjoyed this conversation. It’s good to be able to have a healthy, respectful debate with those of differing opinions without having to succumb to the typical internet nastiness. If this was the standard for online conversation, the web would be a much more pleasant place to converse. Cheers from the other side of the Pond.

          • swordfish

            “In no way, shape, or form does Christianity fight any of these [enlightenment values]; Christianity is the catalyst of them.”

            Was Christianity a catalyst of enlightenment values during the inquisition? Does Christianity support freedom of speech? No, it supports blasphemy laws. Does Christianity support liberty? No, it is an authoritarian system laying down rules under which we should live. Does Christianity support democracy? No, it claims absolute authority over people.

            “Also, I apologize for my earlier “faceless & cowardly” comment.”

            No problem at all. I apologise if I have caused offence to you.

            “As previously stated, I’ve enjoyed this conversation, and a typical internet fire-starter wouldn’t bother having a decent dialogue like this. Cheers from one of your “cousins” across the pond. :)”

            Cheers to you also 🙂

      • Yes. They were given over to their reprobate mind just as you were.

      • Patmos

        “An all-loving God creates people just to be destroyed, yet Christianty is supposed to be a plausible system of belief?”

        Nice to see you took the time to try to understand what Peter is saying here. Oh wait. You didn’t do that at all, instead electing to be a useless know it all wretch unconcerned about making a complete fool of yourself. The irony is, the very next line from Peter in that letter describes you perfectly: “speak evil of the things that they understand not”.

        Fret not foolish one who is void of any understanding whatsoever, this all-loving God who you failed so bad at mocking, does indeed love you though your cold and stubborn heart likely cannot comprehend it. His long suffering is for people just like you, as it was for me, and countless others.

        Your end is coming, and where you sit now is right the cross hairs of an everlasting and exponential state of fear and torture that makes the methods of the worst persecutors this earth has ever seen seem like a nice walk in the park, but Christ has redeemed you from such a fate with a peace that passes understanding of which you can taste right here right now today if you so wish. For God is no respecter of persons, he does not pick and choose to pour out his love to, it’s up for the hearer to repent (that is, change their mind from unbelief to belief) and turn into that love. If you feel shame, know that Jesus died for you so that you can be justified in the presence of God, and this same Jesus has risen again so that you can be glorified by the touch of that same God. No one can act in faith for you, your faith is your own.

        • swordfish

          “Nice to see you took the time to try to understand what Peter is saying here. Oh wait. You didn’t do that at all”

          Reading your original comment again, it’s unclear if your Peter reference is supposed to refer to the tribespeople, the facebook commentors, or both. In any case, God does create people just to be destroyed because he must know in advance who will be saved and who will not.

          “Your end is coming, and where you sit now is right the cross hairs of an everlasting and exponential state of fear and torture that makes the methods of the worst persecutors this earth has ever seen seem like a nice walk in the park,”

          An all-loving God creates an infinite system of torture…

          • People who misuse their free will are given over to their sin because they are no longer worth the active effort of protecting them from demons. A person in this situation is called a reprobate.

            There was an old Latin saying from Ancient Rome: “when God wants to mark someone for death, He first makes then go insane.”

          • Ken Abbott

            “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad” is a line from Longfellow’s poem “The Masque of Pandora” and dates just to 1875. Something like it has long been (erroneously) attributed to Euripides. There is a similar idea expressed by Sophocles in “Antigone” that reads “evil appears as good in the minds of those whom god leads to destruction.” The only known Latin versions are all fairly late (17th century and following.

            The title of one of the original episodes of “Star Trek” invokes the first part of the phrase.

      • Erwin Wild

        All-loving also means righteousness, these two things can’t be separated. There are consequences. God did not create humans to get destroyed, it is the human being that wants to get destroyed.
        “As surely as I live, declares the Lord GOD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked should turn from their ways and live. Turn!” (Ezekiel 33)

    • Sumerian King

      “they are the ones Peter described as made to be destroyed.”

      See my above comment. We should pray for these peoples’ salvation, not their destruction.

      Also, on a side note, the said people Peter was describing are false teachers who were infiltrating the early Church and deliberately, maliciously twisting Scripture and bringing in false teachings and heresies.

    • Raccoon

      They can’t be murderers as the suzziren of Sentinal island, India, allows them to run the island as they see fit and their law is that invaders get repelled and deadly force is justified in doing so. As they have not violated their law they cannot be murderers.

  • swordfish

    Outsiders are not allowed to visit these islands because of the danger of the tribespeople being infected with pathogens which they have no immunity to. This guy should have known that. I don’t agree with spreading “hateful” comments on social media, but many of those comments look like they’re intended to be amusing. Asking why God didn’t protect him is a perfectly valid question.

    • Intended to be amusing???

      • Anthony Cieszkiewicz

        The humor is amusingly diabolical.

    • GLT

      But if evolution is a fact as you claim, swordfish, and these people are susceptible to pathogens why should we care, is that not the process of natural selection?

      • Aqua

        Great point. what difference does any of it make, under godless natural selection? The fit survive. End of story. The nihilistic response to his death kind of proves where these people are.

        Making sense of life and death and what we do in between is the point of delivering the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think the mission field is right here at home.

        • swordfish

          “what difference does any of it make, under godless natural selection?”

          I really don’t get why Christians keep saying this. We have feelings. We have empathy. We love our children. We don’t just stop having these emotional connections just because we don’t believe in God. I would turn this around and ask why should I care what God thinks?

          • Anthony Cieszkiewicz

            You are merely exercising your God given gifts of reason, free will and human agency to believe in Him or believe otherwise. So be it as the best one can do is encourage you to make ever wiser choices for you and your family with the reminder that choices have consequences intended and unintended. In then end, God graciously grants to you your choice to be with Him or be without Him. The real issue is what you teach your grandchildren the choices by which your effort lead them to or away from God.

          • swordfish

            I don’t believe in free will. Actions are either based on reasons, in which case they aren’t free, or they’re not based on reasons, in which case they’re random. There aren’t any other options.

            FWIW, my kids don’t believe in God. I’ve never taught them that God doesn’t exist, but they’ve never seemed to have any interest in religion at all, which I suspect is natural. Unless brainwashed by religious indoctrination, people just aren’t interested.

          • Anthony Cieszkiewicz

            You chose to respond or not respond is an exercise in free will, then of course reason, logic, math are the cornerstones of objective Metaphysical Laws both of which are outside the limitations of materialism. Given your comments you have never taken your children to Church, so parochial education is out so by default you have limited your children’s choices to either secular ideology or secular ideology to the exclusion of God. As for application of reason, you have right choices for the right reasons, wrong choices for the right reasons, wrong choices for the right reasons and wrong choices for the wrong reasons.

          • swordfish

            “You chose to respond or not respond is an exercise in free will”

            Not having free will doesn’t mean we can’t make choices, only that we can’t make completely free choices.

            “you have limited your children’s choices to either secular ideology or secular ideology to the exclusion of God.”

            My kids (unfortunately) go to Christian schools, so take part in Christian assemblies, and visit Churches as part of their education, as well as having religious education lessons. I don’t call it a limitation to avoid learning about things for ehich there’s no evidence.

          • GLT

            “I don’t believe in free will.”

            If that is true, why are you trying to convince others to accept your point of view? If there is no free will you have not chosen your position and neither has anyone else. Therefore, it naturally follows logically you are powerless to change anyone else point of view through the presentation of arguments you believe to be cogent and true but which you had no choice in making. Seriously, does the absolute absurdity of the denial of free will not register with you?

            “I’ve never taught them that God doesn’t exist,but they’ve never seemed to have any interest in religion at all, which I suspect is natural.”

            Seriously, you believe this statement? Of course you taught them to believe God does not exist simply by your own attitudes, actions and lifestyle. Please, do not expect us to be so naive as to believe you did not influence the thoughts and decisions your children have made.

          • swordfish

            “If that is true, why are you trying to convince others to accept your point of view?”

            Not having free will doesn’t mean we aren’t able to make choices, it just means we aren’t able to make completely free choices.

            “Of course you taught them to believe God does not exist simply by your own attitudes, actions and lifestyle.”

            What would you know about my attitudes, actions and lifestyle?

          • GLT

            “Not having free will doesn’t mean we aren’t able to make choices, it just means we aren’t able to make completely free choices.”

            You can’t have it both ways, swordfish, either we have free will or we do not. Make your choice. But of course you cannot do so, can you? 🙂

            “What would you know about my attitudes, actions and lifestyle?”

            In detail, nothing, in general I can draw logical conclusions. As an atheist you will not present the existence of God to your children as an option for them to consider. You will not act in ways which acknowledge the existence of God. You will not use a vocabulary which acknowledges the existence of God, etc., etc.

          • swordfish

            “You can’t have it both ways, swordfish, either we have free will or we do not. Make your choice. But of course you cannot do so, can you? :)”

            Haha. A computer program can make choices, but it doesn’t have free will.

          • GLT

            Haha, a computer does not make choices, it simply obeys its programming.

          • swordfish

            “a computer does not make choices, it simply obeys its programming.”

            A choice is a choice. What is the difference between a computer program making a choice by weighing pros and cons and a person making a choice by weighing pros and cons?

          • GLT

            “What is the difference between a computer program making a choice by weighing pros and cons and a person making a choice by weighing pros and cons?”

            A computer does not weigh pros and cons, it only follows its programming. A computer has no sense of pros and cons, it is not sentient. With a computer there is only programming, nothing more.

          • swordfish

            First of all, it’s a matter of fact that a computer program can make choices. If a program couldn’t choose, or select different options, pretty much no program would work. There’s nothing in the meaning of the word ‘choice’ which means that it cannot refer to something deterministic.

            Now, if you want to claim that what people do when they make a choice is different to what a computer program does, then you need to demonstrate that such choices can be non-deterministic, but also not just random.

          • GLT

            “it’s a matter of fact that a computer program can make choices.”

            A computer can only choose from programmed options, it cannot think or function abstractly, so no, a computer cannot make choices in the sense that we can.

            “meaning of the word ‘choice’ which means that it cannot refer to something deterministic.”

            Of course choices may be deterministic, but not all choices are deterministic, so you really have no argument.

            “then you need to demonstrate that such choices can be non-deterministic, but also not just random.”

            Ever played hockey?

          • swordfish

            [then you need to demonstrate that such choices can be non-deterministic, but also not just random.]

            “Ever played hockey?”

            No. I would have thought choices made during a game are mostly instinctive, i.e., pre-programmed, but I’m not clear what your point is?

            If you want to prove to me that free will exists, you have to think of some way that it’s possible to make a choice which isn’t determined by factors outside our control, but also isn’t just random. I don’t see how such a thing even makes any sense. If we make a choice based on reasons, then the choice is really being determined by those reasons, so it isn’t free. If we make a choice not based on reasons, then it’s just random, like flipping a coin.

            Incidentally, this argument hasn’t got anything to do with what is making the choice – it could be a program or a person, it doesn’t make any difference.

          • GLT

            “choices made during a game are mostly instinctive, i.e., pre-programmed,…”

            Nope, the process of a game presents too many variables. As there are as many as 16 persons on the ice at any one time the amount of variables is massive. Combine that with the speed of the game and the result is a set of possibilities too massive to rely strictly on pre-programmed choices, yet at the same time the decisions cannot be randomly made. Therefore, decisions are not deterministic in nature, nor are they random.

            “If we make a choice based on reasons, then the choice is really being determined by those reasons, so it isn’t free.”

            Palpable nonsense. Of course decisions are made based on reason but that does not mean that the choice is not free. I can make a choice which is contrary to all reasonable options. There is a number of good reasons not to run a red light, but I may decide to do so for no reason at all.

            “it could be a program or a person, it doesn’t make any difference.”

            Computer programs don’t make choices for no reason. They can only work with what is in the program, they have no ability to act randomly. A machine has no concept of randomness.

          • swordfish

            “Nope, the process of a game presents too many variables. […] “Therefore, decisions are not deterministic in nature, nor are they random.”

            Too many variables to process by instinct says who? Really, your ice hockey example is a pretty much perfect example of instinct in action, “therefore” notwithstanding. In any case, you can’t invoke free will only in extreme situations, because it’s supposed to be something we can do at any time.

            “I can make a choice which is contrary to all reasonable options. There is a number of good reasons not to run a red light, but I may decide to do so for no reason at all.”

            You must have some reason to decide to do something “for no reason”! Perhaps you’re trying to prove how free your will is? In any case, if you can make a decision for no reason then it’s just random, which isn’t free will.

            “Computer programs don’t make choices for no reason. They can only work with what is in the program, they have no ability to act randomly.”

            A program can act completely randomly using a hardware source of genuine randomness (std::random_device() for example). But in any case, this is irrelevant because random decisions ARE NOT FREE WILL.

          • GLT

            “Too many variables to process by instinct says who?”

            Says anyone who has ever played the game and understands its pace and dynamics, which you obviously do not or you would not be arguing the point.

            “Really, your ice hockey example is a pretty much perfect example of instinct in action,…”

            Which means you would be carried off on a stretcher in the first 5 minutes. It is way beyond just instincts.

            “In any case, you can’t invoke free will only in extreme situations,…”

            It’s not an extreme situation, it’s a sport and a perfect demonstration of what you said could not happen. Deal with it.

            “You must have some reason to decide to do something,…”

            Must I? Who made up that rule?

            “using a hardware source of genuine randomness,…”

            There is no such thing as programmed randomness, that is a pure oxymoron. Think it through, man.

            “ARE NOT FREE WILL.”

            All caps? It must be true!

          • swordfish

            “Which means you would be carried off on a stretcher in the first 5 minutes. It is way beyond just instincts.”

            Yes, but you haven’t established how it is an example of free will. The fact that decisions are sometimes made rapidly, and in response to a complicated situation, doesn’t mean that they are made by free will.

            “There is no such thing as programmed randomness, that is a pure oxymoron. Think it through, man.”

            If you read my comment again, you’ll see that I was referring to a *hardware* source of randomness, i.e., one external to the program itself.

            “All caps? It must be true!”

            As far as I can tell, you just don’t understand how free will is supposed to work. A random decision isn’t an example of free will. If you don’t believe me, look it up in any dictionary of philosophy. The whole point of free will in Christian theology is to hold us accountable for our decisions, but if our decisions are made completely randomly, we aren’t responsible for them.

          • GLT

            “doesn’t mean that they are made by free will.”

            Speed has nothing to do with whether or not a decision is the result of free will. It is obvious from your response you do not understand the nature of the argument.

            “*hardware* source of randomness, i.e., one external to the program itself.”

            The source of randomness is irrelevant. Whether it be hardware or software any intrusion of randomness into a computer program will cause it to crash. Your attempt to draw a parallel between humans and machines in the area of decision making is moot.

            “but if our decisions are made completely randomly, we aren’t responsible for them.”

            Nonsense. Where did you get the idea the only free decision is a random decision and if a random decision is made we are somehow not responsible for making it? We are ultimately responsible for the decisions we make, whether made without thought, ie., what you like to call randomly, or with careful and due consideration.

          • swordfish

            “Whether it be hardware or software any intrusion of randomness into a computer program will cause it to crash.”

            We’re not talking about simply inserting random numbers into program code in random positions, we’re talking about random numbers being inputs to the program which it is designed to respond to.

            “Where did you get the idea the only free decision is a random decision”

            I’m not saying that.

            Consider a thought experiment in which we can rewind time. Someone makes a decision, then we rewind time back to a point before they made the decision and run it again. In this situation, where absolutely everything is exactly the same as before, could that person make a different decision? If the answer is no, then they aren’t responsible for their decision because it’s totally determined by factors outside their control. If the answer is yes, then the only way that could happen is if some random, non-deterministic factor has been introduced. In that case, they *still* aren’t responsible for their decision as it was determined by random factors outside their control.

            How would free will work in this thought experiment?

          • GLT

            “We’re not talking about simply inserting random numbers into program code in random positions, we’re talking about random numbers being inputs to the program which it is designed to respond to.”

            Think! If the program is designed to respond to these ‘random’ number insertions, it is not random.

            “If the answer is yes, then the only way that could happen is if some random, non-deterministic factor has been introduced.”

            You’re simply assuming what you’re trying to prove, do you not realize that fact? The individual could absolutely make another decision without any additional inputs.

          • swordfish

            “Think! If the program is designed to respond to these ‘random’ number insertions, it is not random.”

            (I love the way you rudely say “think!” after making an argument which is completely different to your original one.) A program can be embedded in hardware, so it can be part of the hardware which is generating the genuinely random input. You’ve previously claimed that you can make random decisions, but I doubt if you think your entire brain has to operate randomly to do so, so the situation is the same as the computer program example anyway.

            “You’re simply assuming what you’re trying to prove, do you not realize that fact? The individual could absolutely make another decision without any additional inputs.”

            You claim that I’m assuming what I’m trying to prove, then go ahead and do the same by claiming that it would be possible for the person in the ‘rewinding time’ experiment to make a different decision. I’m not assuming what I’m trying to prove, I’m pointing out that whatever the outcome of the experiment (same or different decision), the result isn’t free will.

          • GLT

            “after making an argument which is completely different to your original one.”

            How is it different? I have consistently stated computer programs cannot operate randomly. You’re confusing the ability to act randomly with the ability to think abstractly, they are not the same. A machine can do neither, a human can do both.

            “the result isn’t free will.”

            So you keep claiming but never demonstrating, that is the point. Continually asserting your opinion is not proving a point.

          • swordfish

            “You’re confusing the ability to act randomly with the ability to think abstractly, they are not the same. A machine can do neither, a human can do both.”

            I’ve already shown you that computers can act randomly. I even gave you the specific code which can do this in the C++ language! As for thinking abstractly, I’ve never mentioned this at all, so I’ve no idea why you think I’m confusing two things when I’ve never even mentioned one of them.

            [the result isn’t free will]

            “So you keep claiming but never demonstrating, that is the point. Continually asserting your opinion is not proving a point.”

            I’m not just asserting that random decisions aren’t free will, this is simply how free will is (usually) defined. The problem is one of responsibility – if you decide to do something purely because of a random firing of some neuron in your brain, then You clearly aren’t responsible for that decision in any meaningful sense.

          • GLT

            “I’ve already shown you that computers can act randomly.”

            No, you have not, you have simply asserted it. I know several people who work professionally in the area of computer programming and every single one of them disagrees with you. So, who am I to believe. professional programmers or you?

            “I’m not just asserting that random decisions aren’t free will, this is simply how free will is (usually) defined.”

            No, it is not. Free Will: noun; “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.”

            Where does randomness fit into that definition?

            “if you decide to do something purely because of a random firing of some neuron in your brain, then You clearly aren’t responsible for that decision in any meaningful sense.”

            That would work well in the justice system.

          • swordfish

            “I know several people who work professionally in the area of computer programming and every single one of them disagrees with you. So, who am I to believe. professional programmers or you?”

            I am a professional programmer. If someone asked me if a computer program can produce random numbers, I’d agree with your aquantances and say ‘no’, but if I knew the exact context of the question, I’d agree that a computer program can operate randomly in response to an external or embedded source of genuine randomness.

            “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.”

            “Where does randomness fit into that definition?”

            Let me answer with a question: how would you define “acting without the constraint of necessity”?

          • GLT

            “I’d agree that a computer program can operate randomly in response to an external or embedded source of genuine randomness.”

            An embedded source of randomness is not genuine randomness, an embedded source is, by definition, designed and therefore not random. You really need to work on your critical thinking skills.

            “how would you define “acting without the constraint of necessity”?”

            A genuine sociopath would fit that definition.

          • swordfish

            “An embedded source of randomness is not genuine randomness, an embedded source is, by definition, designed and therefore not random. You really need to work on your critical thinking skills.”

            What would you call genuine randomness? If the random source is something like noise from a transistor junction, it is definitely random as it’s dependant on quantum mechanical uncertainty. You really need to stop telling me to work on my critical thinking skills.

            So one of the dictionary definitions of free will which you quoted – “acting without the constraint of necessity” – you say is what a “genuine sociopath” would fit. I’m not clear how that helps your defence of free will.

          • Ken Abbott

            Hold on. Are you claiming that having a reason to make a particular choice or decision isn’t free? We’re not talking about compulsion, merely motivation. If, as one philosopher put it, the will is “the mind choosing,” does not the human mind have the freedom to weigh (quickly or slowly) the pros and cons of particular choices and then act upon the choice most attractive or reasonable to it?

            And how can you have no reason to choose or act in any particular way? It may be a superficial reason (just felt like it), but it’s still a reason or motive. If you have no motive to do anything, you won’t do anything (which is itself a choice).

            Just now glancing down the thread, I see your post from 15 minutes ago. You wrote, “Not having free will doesn’t mean we aren’t able to make choices, it just means we aren’t able to make completely free choices.” What would constitute a “completely free” choice? If someone makes a choice that was not compelled by external forces but completely determined by his own reasons, motives, rationales, etc., that’s what we call self-determination, which most would consider to define freedom.

          • swordfish

            “does not the human mind have the freedom to weigh (quickly or slowly) the pros and cons of particular choices and then act upon the choice most attractive or reasonable to it?”

            We have apparent freedom to weigh pros and cons, but our actual choice is then determined by those pros, cons and weightings. If the choice is determined by something, it isn’t free.

            “If someone makes a choice that was not compelled by external forces but completely determined by his own reasons, motives, rationales, etc., that’s what we call self-determination, which most would consider to define freedom.”

            I’m not sure that it’s possible to have reasons, motives and rationales which are completely free from external influences, but if you want to define free will that way, then you’ve got free will. I don’t believe that such a thing is *really* free will though, as your choice would still be determined by factors outside your control.

          • Ken Abbott

            If the idea that the human will, in order to be considered free, must be completely unfettered or unexposed to outside influences, then it is not free. But this is an absurd concept. If nothing else, we are limited by our natures. Birds may fly; we cannot, not without mechanical assistance. Fish may swim underwater for indefinite periods; we have to have a breathing apparatus. We make choices according to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Back in the day, a Soviet citizen could choose only that which was available to her on the market shelves, which was rather limited. Her American counterpart faced store shelves abundant to overflowing with an almost bewildering array of choices. And yet the Soviet woman’s individual choice of either of two foodstuffs was, from a volitional standpoint, as free as the American’s choice from among plenty.

            If our choices are entirely determined by external forces (or even involuntary internal forces, such as biochemistry), then they have no true volitional content, and therefore lack culpability. This guts morality–how can anyone be held accountable for making a choice that is forced upon him?

          • swordfish

            I’ve read your comment numerous times, but I’m still not clear if you’re agreeing with me or not 🙂

            Regarding your argument that we still have freedom to choose even if our choices are limited, I’d say that that would undermine the free will defence of the problem of evil, in the sense that our choices could be limited by God such that we couldn’t choose to do evil, yet we’d still be free.

            If we have a choice between two options (A and B), then if A seems a better option than B, we’re never going to choose B. The only way we could ever choose B would be if we were literally challenged to prove that we have free will, or had some kind of brain seizure. To me, this very simple argument totally destroys free will.

            I recommend a YouTube video by CosmicSkeptic called “Why Free Will Doesn’t Exist”. If you watch it, let me know if you agree with it or not.

          • Aqua

            Great question. And appropriate to turn it around.

            Because we do not live in time. We live in eternity. We come from God. We return to God. We are responsible to God our Creator at judgement for all eternity in which our eternal fate is fixed. God will ask us to give an account for what we have done in the time we were given. After this life: judgement. And our eternity, our eternal nature, what we are after death, our soul, depends upon choices we make while alive. Everything we do – thoughts, words, actions matter. The mass murderer, the pedophile (etc) will have a different fate than a Mother Theresa who spent herself for the sake of love of others. The perfect Judge will render to each according to their works.

            I contrast that with godless natural selection. We are formed by a fluke, chance, a random collection of matter. There is no governing authority here. There is nothing after death. We cease to exist. Black doesn’t even describe it. Nullity. Void. What we do here doesn’t matter because there is no overarching law of nature; no lawgiver and thus no judgement for our actions with respect to that “natural law”; the mass murderer is treated by death the same as Mother Theresa. Both return to the void of nothing. Actions in life mean nothing after death. Murder and charity both receive precisely the same reward in the grave.

            In sum: eternity. What happens next? Are we immortal souls going to judgement? Or chemical based structures with no immortal “soul” that simply goes black into the void? Is there a Law Giver above and behind known reality? Or does chance rule in infinite space.

            To me, “feelings, empathy, love” all point to the Supreme Author who *is* love. These are facets of His divine law of nature. They are spiritual matters of the soul which transcend the physical nature; no practical explanation is possible (or satisfactory) in the physical realm of “natural selection”.

            Where do we come from. Where are we going? What difference does any of it make? These are the questions that drive me. I come from the mind of God. I am sustained in life by God. I will return one day to God and give an account for my gifts. I will live on after physical death, somewhere, eternally.

            Under natural selection, if there is no god, no soul, and no eternal life after physical death, the answers to these questions are quite different.

      • swordfish

        It doesn’t make sense to say we shouldn’t care about something just because it’s the result of a natural process. Cancer is natural, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and intervene to cure it.

        • Nothing about cancer is natural, nor is death. That is a result of sin, which you seem desperate to propagate in this world.

          If you deny God, you have no foundation for anything. you are scared at the implications of your own position.

          • swordfish

            You’re claiming that God created cancer and death.

          • Both of which are caused by sin.

            sin is division from God. Since we are contingent upon God, being separated from Him causes damage, deformity, and death.

        • GLT

          Is that what I said?

          • swordfish

            What you said was slightly ambiguous. When you said “is that not the process of natural selection?”, it’s not clear if you’re referring to “these people are susceptible to pathogens”, or “why should we care”. I assumed you meant the latter – why should we care if something is in line with natural selection? I answered in line with that: The fact that something is natural doesn’t mean it’s desireable.

          • GLT

            I was referring to both, why should we care about these people? If we are all just the result of random events and natural selection there is no absolute standard by which one can say we should care, everything is simply relative.

          • swordfish

            Saying that we shouldn’t care because we’re just the result of random events and natural selection makes no more sense than saying we shouldn’t care because we’re just bipedal. In other words, you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.

            We care about people because it is in our nature as human beings to do so. The (alleged) existence of absolute standards would itself just be a fact, and wouldn’t mean we should care about those standards.

      • swordfish

        Saying that we shouldn’t care because we’re just the result of random events and natural selection makes no more sense than saying we shouldn’t care because we’re just bipedal. In other words, you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.

        We care about people because it is in our nature as human beings to do so. The (alleged) existence of absolute standards would itself just be a fact, and wouldn’t mean we should care about those standards.

        • GLT

          “In other words, you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.”

          That we are bi-pedal is a fact, that we are the result of random events and natural selection most certainly is not. Therefore, your analogy is beyond moot.

          “We care about people because it is in our nature as human beings to do so.”

          It is? Was it in the nature of the SS to care about the Jews? Did Stalin care about the Ukrainians? No. swordfish, it is not part of our nature as human beings to care about people and to care about others is not part of natural selection or survival of the fittest. Our ability to care about others comes from a source outside of a natural being. It comes from a set of morals we choose to follow.

          • swordfish

            “That we are bi-pedal is a fact, that we are the result of random events and natural selection most certainly is not. Therefore, your analogy is beyond moot.”

            That you dispute the fact of evolution has no bearing on the validity of the analogy. You still can’t get an “ought” from an “is”.

            “Was it in the nature of the SS to care about the Jews?”

            You might want to rethink that example bearing in mind that many in the SS were Christians, but in any case, the fact that our nature can be subverted in extreme circumstances like war is irrelevant. The vast majority of people who have ever lived haven’t done anything like the SS did.

            “it is not part of our nature as human beings to care about people”

            Do you not care about people? Apparently not. It is simply a fact that the vast majority of us do care about people, and to dispute this is sad and frankly disturbing.

            “to care about others is not part of natural selection or survival of the fittest.”

            We are a social species who have evolved to live in groups because it greatly benefits our survival chances.

            “Our ability to care about others comes from a source outside of a natural being. It comes from a set of morals we choose to follow.”

            The fact that atheists such as myself care about people disproves this.

    • The man was Martyed, and Martyrs instantly are Baptized in their blood.

      So the man is in Heaven now, where are you, dear reprobate?

      • Andrew Mason

        Was he? It’s unclear if Chau is Christian – the local (Indian?) media reported he may have wanted to preach Christianity, but his social media profile just suggests he’s a keen traveler. This article is about people celebrating the death of someone who may, or may not, have been Christian. Even if he were Christian, there’s only about a 1:5 chance he’s Roman Catholic. Feel free to correct me but my impression is that you wouldn’t accept a martyred Methodist, Pentecostal, Southern Baptist etc.

        • A Martyr is someone who is killed in effigy of Christ. The person is then baptised in their own blood in the process, sending them straight to Heaven.

          If genuine martyrdom is the case here, then he is in Heaven as he was Baptized in his own blood. That is rare for someone outside of the Church, but it is possible.

          Christ is part of the Church. Being outside of the Church does not mean demoniacs won’t kill someone because said demoniacs mistakenly believe them a part of the Church. Therefore there is a case to be made for the person to share in what is only granted to those in the Church.

          The example of this is abortion, where a child is sacrificed to the devil in effigy of the Baby Jesus. The child is killed in effigy of Christ, so they are Baptized in their blood. This is why the children killed by herod when he was looking to murder Christ as a baby are all Martyrs.

          So if this is genuine martyrdom, it was probably the only way he could have got to Heaven despite his heresy. I don’t know what he was though, but I am just telling you the facts.

          Are you jealous that he may have been martyred and therefore was granted what is not even an option for you?

          • Andrew Mason

            Jealous? Not really as that’d require me to accept your paradigm, which I don’t. We do agree that it is still unclear whether this was a missionary thing or not – I’ve seen another story suggesting it may be the case, but if so I suspect most missionary organisations would be perturbed by his approach.

            I was mostly curious how you reconcile your claim to martyrdom with heretic status. By demoniac I presume you mean those strongly influenced if not outright possessed by demons. I don’t see such restricting their killing only to Christians. That being the case I don’t see your effigy view coming into play.

          • What you accept is meaningless, though you gnostics do think the rules are made up by your ego and cannot exist outside of your ego.

            demoniacs are those that worship demons, usually unknowingly. The devil has no reason to attack people who serve him no threat, and especially no reason to attack his own soldiers while they are still useful to him. Only the Church is a threat to the devil as the Church is the only thing in this world that doesn’t have a claim to it by the devil.

            As I said, being baptized in your blood is the ONLY way a prot heretic could even get close to Heaven.

          • Andrew Mason

            Actually in this context you have to admit it is meaningful. If I don’t accept your paradigm I have no reason to be jealous.

            The devil does have reason to attack people who serve him – he hates all mankind, not just Christians. Consider just how many wars are being and have been fought between groups in his service. Yes he may hate Christians far more, but we’re talking degrees of hate not whether or not he hates.

            We’ll have to agree to disagree – I’m inclined to think heretics don’t go to Heaven, but God alone gets to make that call. What is clear to me at least is that Jesus alone is the way, which means martyrdom in false service to Him isn’t a golden ticket.

          • I asked why you are going off on me, and assumed the motive was sour grapes on your part.

            Martyrdom is in Witness and Effigy to Christ. Basically you are killed because the demons who are goading the pagans want to kill you in revenge of Christ being born. you remind them of Christ in some way, and since they can’t kill God they try to kill you instead.

      • GLT

        “where are you, dear reprobate?”

        Well, that’s effective.

    • Chip Crawford

      We are not amused …

  • Sumerian King

    In Tertullian’s late 2nd century work Apologeticus, he famously stated, “The blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church.” This reminds me of a movie I saw with my mother when I was younger about the true story of some Western missionaries who were murdered/martyred when ministering to an indigenous tribe in South America. Years later, the Lord made a mighty miracle and revival in that same area. Considering Mr. Chau’s passing, I expect God to do great things for the people of North Sentinel Island. Sometimes it takes men and women laying down their life for the Gospel to go forward. May God forgive these people, and may this man’s death be for the glory of the Lord.

    As for the people making rude comments, I’m really not shocked at all. They could care less about the salvation of these people, as they belong to the system of this world, not the Kingdom of our Lord.

  • Up_Words

    When the gospel message was first presented to the outside world, the hearers experienced a pang of conscience and responded “what shall we do to be saved?” (Acts 2:37) Yet at the end of this age, they will consider such advice from the gospel a bother (and torment) and send gifts to one another at the martyrdom of the faithful (Rev. 11:10) —“having their conscience(s) seared, as with a hot iron” (1 Tim. 4:2 (Genesis 19:9)).

  • Chip Crawford

    Hey, the BBC is some of the worst, so maybe that was not the best sampling for overall. The UK used to send missionaries; now they need them coming to them. The nation is so left now, so socialist. Again, they are themselves a nation in general more hostile to the Gospel than not.

    • Andrew Mason

      My impression is that the Right in Britain is increasingly anti-Christian, the Left is even worse.

    • swordfish

      Judging by Brexit, I don’t think the UK is leftist. I have a lot of issues with the BBC myself, but If the UK is so hostile to Christianity, how come the Church of England is our official state religion, with the Queen as head of the Church, tax exemptions for Churches, unelected Bishops sitting in the House of Lords, bank holidays on Christian festivals like Easter, and with many Schools run by the Church?

      • That you spit on the idea of the Church having anything at all, especially what the Church created, proves his point.

  • davidrev1911

    Wow! Only in modern-day Christian “Churches,” let alone cultures throughout the biblically illiterate West – i.e., in what’s long-since been identified for at least two decades now as “post-Christian Europe” & “post-Christian [God Bless] America” – would a story like this be covered, or reported on, in such a tragically anemic biblical context.

    We so-called Christians, or rather Christian chameleons here in the United States, HIDING safely behind our “state-licensed” corporate 501(c)(3) four-walled congregational buildings – meaning wholly UNbiblical, IRS-controlled “State Churches” at that – should prayerfully consider what the Sovereign Lord Yeshua-Jesus is trying to communicate to all His professing own here, and elsewhere, through this young Christian disciple’s gutsy adherence to the Lord Jesus’ mostly ignored “Great Commission,” found in Matthew 28:18-20.

    (And he even took the time to learn some of their native language.)

    ● ● ●

    “And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:34-38/ESV)

    “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.

    “Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.

    “But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’ “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.

    “I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me…” (John 15:18-16:3/ESV)

    • Actually, sir, the context you seek can be found in many other articles on this site, my own and others’. We don’t try to say everything in every article; that would be an unnecessary burden for both the writers and the readers.

      • davidrev1911

        Tom, thank you for the comment, but could you at all be more specific re: the “context I seek,” because that would really be helpful. And if your statement covers something (or an issue) that’s obvious – as I simply can’t see the connection between my comment, and your directing me to others’ articles on the Stream – then please forgive my lack of insight.

  • Trilemma

    I’ve noticed a similar sentiment among Christians towards the people suffering in the California fires as if they deserved what they are experiencing. If you sow hate you should not be surprised to reap hate.

    • philfouthirteen

      I haven’t heard of any Christian expressing those sentiments. I suspect it’s a tiny fraction.

      • trilemma is a known satanism and active subsersive on here. They are just trying to push off their guilty conscience on others, because they are -deep down- happy that a Christian died.

        • philfouthirteen

          Pitiful.

        • Trilemma

          I am not a satanist. I do not have a guilty conscience. I am saddened by this Christian’s death.

          • Yet you posted to claim that Christians deserve hatred and to be mocked.

            you deny what you are, but people are welcome to read your posts, as they contradict your denial here.

          • Trilemma

            I have never claimed that Christians deserve hatred and to be mocked.

          • Read your own messages, you will be surprised at the evil stuff you say.

      • Trilemma

        On this site, in the comments section of Michael Brown’s article, “Where Was God When California Burned?” judgeroybean made this comment.

        Wealthy, arrogant, and sinful, California liberals have been waving their middle fingers at God way too long. Surprised this chastisement is so mild. Gotta hunch things are going to get worse. Those people are slow learners.

        Sounds like he thinks they got what they deserved.

        • philfouthirteen

          That’s an outlier not a trend.

          • Trilemma

            Franklin Graham has been quoted as saying, “I prayed over the issue and the message I got is California is being punished by God for its disobedience.”

        • What fallen man deserves is far worse than just that.

          The point here is “deserve.”

          • Trilemma

            Is God giving those in California what they deserve?

          • God is not giving them any fire, reprobate. If God was to give you what you deserve, he would have just thrown you into damnation instead of giving you a chance to be born here so you could repent.

        • Trilemma, this goes beyond the pale. You’re a word-manipulating deceiver. Here’s more from Brown’s article:

          “What a terrible, terrible tragedy. What an unspeakable disaster.

          “And along with the loss of life, there is the loss of property, with thousands of homes totally destroyed.

          “Where was God during this season of devastation and loss?

          “While we grieve with the survivors and their families, how do we explain such calamities?

          “I humbly suggest that this is not the time for cheap answers or frivolous speculation. Do you agree?”

          Does that sound like the hate comments I quoted above? Does it? DOES IT?

          I can’t believe you’d try to foist that on us here. Really, really unbelievable.

          Are you proud of yourself for misrepresenting Brown and this site so egregiously?

          • Trilemma

            Once again, you accuse me of saying something I DID NOT SAY. I did not say that Christians are generally like the commenters you quoted. I didn’t say it. I said I see the same sentiment among Christians. That does not mean all Christians. That does not mean most Christians. That does not mean any particular percentage of Christians. If I said I see Muslims among Americans are you going to accuse me of saying Americans are generally Muslim? I hope not. Obviously, Dr. Brown does not have the sentiment similar to the ones you quoted. I didn’t say he did. But I do see the same sentiment among Christians. Not all Christians. But definitely some. I don’t know what percentage have this sentiment. As I pointed out, judgeroybean has this sentiment. When I asked NIGELTEAPOT if he thought some of the Californians who were burned to death deserved it and he said “Sure, fallen man tends to be evil.”

            In his article, Dr. Brown said, “Some would say this is a human issue, not a divine issue, since the Lord has given us free will and our choices have serious consequences.” In the comments here, Anthony Cieszkiewicz expressed the sentiment that Californians deserved what they were experiencing, “Only in the sense that those that are living in the wildfire prone areas have not taken the steps to address and mitigate the threat of wildfires.” So, he’s saying it’s a human issue and blames the victims.

            In his article, Dr. Brown also said, “Some Christians see all natural disasters as acts of divine judgment, quickly pointing the finger at the sin of California.” As reported on foxnews, Ohio Columbiana County Republican Party Chairman Dave Johnson shared a meme on Facebook that had images of wildfires with the words “God’s punishment to liberal California” and “Hell on Earth brought to you by the liberals in California.”

            The sentiment I see is probably more common than you would like to admit.

          • When you say on an article about a man who was killed for his Faith “well Christians put hate out into the world, so you should expect it in return.” What precisely do you think you are saying?

            No way you are just saying these things unthinkingly as they are too evil and two deconstructive for you to not actively be trying to subvert something.

            People are fallen, and therefore claiming that everyone was innocent (especially in California) is nonsense. Especially when you consider the city is an artificial oasis in the desert built on what is normally brush used for starting campfires.

            So ultimately you are not affected by the fire in California, you are affected by the fires you know are coming because of your evil. you then claim both God and Christians are cruel because virtue makes your vice uncomfortable.

            you think if you attack Christians, it will absolve you by making us a scapegoat. Not the case.

            Truly you are one of the most evil people I have met.

          • I can believe it. The user trilemma does this daily.

            Let me give you some greatest hits:
            – regularly says Christ is not God
            – regularly waffles between calling God of the Bible cruel or nonexistent
            – believes God is not omnipotent and not omniscient, and is very willing to let those like him take over one day
            – regularly promotes abortion, sodomy, blasphemy, and post-modernism/marxism

            This is the standard stuff for those like him, but now it gets spicy:
            – claims he knows of satanic rituals that Christ has performed
            – claims it is a crime for Christians to abstain from satanic rituals
            – claims that God is not God if he does not allow the devil into Heaven
            – claims that men and women have souls that sometimes go in the wrong body, though has more recently denied the existence of the soul to claim that they now just have the “wrong brains”
            – claims that race is a fashion you identify as, and not a biological characteristic
            – claims that people are not alive or human when unconscious
            – claims it is a base requirement for Christians to accept sodomy and transhumanism

            All of that is stuff he has said multiple times enough for it to be notable. That is all I can remember off the top of my head without taking hours to remember the one-off things.

            This guy is bad news in other ways as well, considering he claims to be a part of his wife’s baptist church but yet actively resents it from the inside.

    • I have seen no such thing, I do see a monster claiming this man deserved to die for being Christian.

      I have also seen you projecting out of the mortal sin of despair on this site almost daily. I also see you attacking the Church regularly as well.

      So this is your way to salve your ego because your conscience is attacking you?

    • Sumerian King

      That’s such an absurd lie. On the Christian radio I listen to in the car on a daily basis, there has only been urges for Christians to pray for California, as well as give monetarily, or any other way they can. Christian ministries are on the front-lines of this disaster (as with every other, anywhere in the world), providing love, and aid, and support. I’m not sure what kind of “Christians” you hang around, but they certainly aren’t any kind I would associate with.

      • Trilemma

        As Mr. Gilson pointed out, it was a minority that expressed the hate toward the Christian who was killed, so it is also a minority that express the sentiment that California is being punished by God.

        • Sumerian King

          Yet your comment about “sewing hate” was quite generalized. Such a minority of knuckleheads hardly deserves a response at all. Here’s a trick: next time, pretend these silly people saying such nonsense are fundamentalist Muslims cutting the throats of Iraqi or Syrian Christians. I’m sure you’ll be much quicker to highlight their minority status and twisted logic among a much larger, more admirable demographic than you are with us. Happy Thanksgiving.

          • trilemma would call those people brave no doubt.

            As Chesterton said, they will set their own homes on fire to get the flame to try to burn the Church.

          • Sumerian King

            Yes, Chesterton was certainly on to something.

          • I try to keep track of trilemma as his messages get outright demonic when his mask starts slipping.

            I could give a list of his greatest hits, but it would disgust me to even try. It would also take a while.

            It would probably be easier if you would come up with some outlandish, evil thing to say and I would tell you if I saw him say it once. I guarantee he has said worse, so you should try it.

          • Trilemma

            The Bible makes a quite generalized statement that you reap what you sow. Therefore, if you sow hate you should expect to reap hate. I did not claim that all Christians sow hate. The minority of knuckleheads isn’t negligible and they make all Christianity look hateful. Unfortunately, the minority of Christians who sow hate results in other Christians reaping hate.

        • No, Gilson said that 1/8th of the comments he read were outright celebrating Christians being killed.

          The other 7/8th were people attacking Christians.

          your conscience seems to be bothering you more than usual.

      • trilemma is a known troll and spends all day advocating for demonic thins around here.

    • Anthony Cieszkiewicz

      Only in the sense that those that are living in the wildfire prone areas have not taken the steps to address and mitigate the threat of wildfires. Living in a rural environment subject to wildfire, the responsible landowners maintain fire breaks to minimize the threat of wildfires. In the event of a wildfire, with a bit of time, I should be able to back-burn on our property to protect our home and out buildings. With a little bit of planning and effort, the ounce of prevention is far more effect than a pound of the cure. In addition my efforts to protect our property provides a benefit to my neighbors to reduce their risk from wildfires passing thru our property to theirs.

      • Trilemma

        They are certainly suffering the consequences of not taking adequate steps to mitigate the threat of wildfires. They did remove many trees to reduce the amount of fuel available for a wildfire. However, I don’t think that means they deserve to burn to death. Their deaths are a tragedy not a deserved fate.

        • Yet not enough to prevent arson.

          What is not a tragedy is servants of the devil burning. I am not talking about wildfires.

        • Anthony Cieszkiewicz

          Perhaps it is merely blind, pitiless luck in concert with contributory negligence. Contributory negligence as a result of willful choices or unintended consequence all too often relegate you the remaining option of fate. Those that didn’t make responsible choices are responsible for the deaths of the associated innocents in this tragedy.

    • davidrev1911

      “There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he [Yeshus-Jesus] answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

      “Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders [“more sinful”/HCSB] than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:1-5/ESV – emphasis mine.)

    • cestusdei

      I haven’t noticed it. But I do notice how much Leftists like yourself hate me and all that I love. You tell me so frequently and cheer when natural disasters strike red areas.

      • Trilemma

        If you haven’t noticed it you have but to read the comments here. I am not a leftist. I don’t hate you or all that you love. I never cheer when natural disaster strike anywhere. You clearly don’t know me.

        • cestusdei

          You clearly don’t know me, but I can sure feel that hate. I never met a Christian who cheered a natural disaster in CA in or anywhere else. The sheer joy that the Left takes in the death of this poor soul is utterly vile.

        • By your fruits we will know you, and they are satanic.

          To answer your posts about the end of the world on one of your other forums:

          That is the reason why the deluge happened.

          That you extrapolate the rest is on you. This is a problem with you, confusing your ego’s internal chattering with reality.

          The world will end when there is enough people in Heaven to account for every fallen angel, as an ultimate insult to the devil. The last spaces are reserved for the small amount of Faithful Jews who will convert before the end.

          As for sodomy, it is still the second sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance.

          As for hell, it is real and you are begging with your evil.

          • Trilemma

            I don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ll need to reply to the actual comment I supposedly made.

          • I can see you understood exactly what I meant if your mind shut off and went into a disassociative ego-defense mode that quickly.

            Read it slowly for best effect.

      • Laura Smyth

        Conservatives were cheering over the fires!

        • cestusdei

          No, you Leftists were. And I am sure you were personally.

  • Jess Mee

    It’s not an “anti-Christian tone” that is on display here. It’s revulsion at his arrogance which led him to believe that he had a God given right to go someplace where he knew damned well he wasn’t welcome. He knew that by going there he was threatening all of their lives with potentially lethal diseases and infections which could wipe out their entire populace, and yet he chose to go and endanger them anyway, all for the sake of earning Jesus brownie points by converting the heathens.

    • you say it is not about hating Christians, yet you spend the whole time hating on Christians.

      The use of “damned” is the point of your angst I assume. Martyrs get to Heaven, and you know you aren’t getting there being a reprobate. Does the thought of that hurt you that much? Well, I guess it should, but why not just blame yourself?

      Are you angry that no one wants to convert you? Well those savages are less evil than you are so it isn’t a waste of time to try.

      arrogance is taking authority that does not belong to ourselves. Well God told us to go out and spread the Good News. What authority is higher than God?

      • Jess Mee

        So anyone who disagrees with you is “hating”? I repeat it was his arrogance that got him killed. What else would you call it when someone intrudes in a place where they’re not wanted, knowing that you may bear pathogens which could cause the annihilation of the populace, all to promote something which they wouldn’t even have the ability to understand as they have no known connection any of the outside world’s cultures or languages? Destroy the island in order to save it? He thought that he knew better than the Sentinelese as to what they should need and want. That is arrogance. And proselytism does not extend to pushing something in people’s faces which they don’t want.

        • No, your hatred of Christians shows your hatred. I don’t see any “disagreement” on your part, as that would require you to have a position at all.

          All you are showing is hatred of Christians because you think attacking us will make your shame over sin go away. you realize attacking God is meaningless, because what can you do to God? Therefore you think attacking us will finally work, and you will attack until you become violent. In fact, you have already become violent in your heart as you celebrating this man being killed shows.

          Well we can empirically test this. you think Christians being killed will make your shame go away: did it work?

          Clearly not. One thing your reprobate mind cannot understand is that shame is due to doing unnatural things. These savages would feel shame for doing what you regularly do, and they aren’t Christians.

          Therefore your religion’s prototypical meme of “Christian brainwashing” causing your shame is nonsense. Just because only Christians defend Truth, does not mean Truth is mere Christian “belief.”

          Bloody reprobate.

          Again, we are tasked with authority by God, what authority is higher than God? your ego? Is that what you go to nurse with when the most advanced people in all history come to tell you Good News?

          • Jess Mee

            I note that you refuse to address the danger he posed to the people of the island. What right did he have to go there and endanger the entire population by exposing them to disease pathogens which he could have been carrying? Is it that if he leads them to salvation before killing them that it’s all good? Evangelicals and missionaries of centuries past may not have understood the threat they posed to the peoples they wished to convert. Chau had no such excuse.

          • Was the “danger” that they may feel ashamed for touching themselves at night, or is that the “danger” you personally attribute to learning about Christianity?

            Again, what authority is above God?

          • Jess Mee

            As I stated, the danger lies in the potentially fatal diseases with which Chau could have infected them. How does your apparent obtuseness serve Him, if I might ask?

          • When has your kind ever cared about mass killing? The “disease” you are afraid of transmission is that of Absolute Truth, where you will no longer be able to control them and use their savagery as a template for your “new world order.”

            Again, your position is that Christians are arrogant (claiming authority for ourselves that we don’t have). God has tasked us with spreading the Good News. What authority do you out over God, that you claim authority given by God is insufficient?

        • Fr Eric

          “Destroy the island in order to save it.” This and the rest of your comment sounds like Islam’s approach to England. How polite are the Muslims?

    • The great problem with your theory is that it runs smack into evidence against it.

      Some of the comments were certainly about what you say. The one about hoping he was an American evangelical isn’t. Read the source for the rest of the comments you’ll find plenty — one-eighth, in my sample — displaying outright anti-Christian hostility, and a lot more expressing what I’ve called smug satisfaction.

      If they were upset at the guy they’d say so, and some did. More of them were pretty satisfied he got killed. Happy about it. That’s not how people communicate revulsion.

    • cestusdei

      Yeah and I don’t want unvetted Mexicans and others who think they have the God given right to go someplace, the USA, where they are not welcome. I am not interested in changing my culture.

      Good with that?

  • cestusdei

    So if I say “I don’t want foreigners coming into my country and interfering in my culture…i.e. let’s build a wall” they will be good with that?

  • Raccoon

    If he had been a muslim who went there to preach the word of allah and muhammad and he got turned into a human pin cushion would you feel the same way? In that instance I doubt the comments would see the light of day.

  • Ge0ffrey

    If you’re in a room longer than 30 seconds with a lefty, he/she begins proselytizing his lefty faith/politics. That’s all they ever do, try to recruit.

    • Mbukukanyau

      I know

  • Mack

    I’m feeling the love in the postings.

  • Mbukukanyau

    I have to say, it’s highly unlikely Catholic Missionaries would try to pull a stunt like this poor soul attempted. Some of the ridicule is self inflicted.

  • kattisch

    It is telling to see so many black and dark hearts toward humanity. Society is turning, once again, back to its pagan roots. The darker it gets, the greater those who are lights shine in the world. The blood of martyrs builds, once again, the kingdom of God.

  • YoikesAndAway

    Not that I even remotely agree with the anti-Christian sentiment being spewed by FB trolls, but one must realize where its coming from. This is nothing more than secular hatred of missionaries whom they believe destroys cultures. They are looking from the viewpoint of missionaries in Africa and other poor tribal countries of the past and some of the things that were done. These trolls do not have any other perspective and therefore anyone exhibiting anything remotely similar are therefore open to ridicule even in death. The only way to counter their hatred is to know where it comes from.

  • DANGALLAGHER81

    Persecution is to rise as Satan’s time of opportunity comes to a close.

  • Chris Rowland

    1)Those cited comments above are wretched. I don’t know if they represent a true sample of society… most likely the people who post comments overwhelmingly like to put negative things. In short, they’re trolls.
    2)Most people who live in overwhelmingly Christian societies suppose that all the good things about their society (free speech, appreciation of the individual as an end and not a means, equality before the written law, rights…) also existed in non-Christian societies, and for the most part they didn’t and Christians brought those things, or at least the idea of those things if not in practice.
    3) However, that missionary did disregard the population’s health, and he must have known that he was putting them at great risk by going there (possibly bringing fatal disease). That is a real concern, and for that he can be faulted, even if his intentions were good. As Christians, we must use reason in addition to faith. We have learned about diseases, immune systems, and we should not disregard that.

Inspiration
How to Love Others Better Than You Do
David Mills
More from The Stream
Connect with Us