>>> But Mr. Chau pushed ahead in his kayak, which he had packed with a Bible. After that, it is a bit of a mystery what happened.
Also, can these evangelists take a break? It's not 1600s anymore.
But for Christians, we are convinced that the Bible is true based on evidence and reason, and therefore can only believe what it teaches. For Christians, the answer is simple: everyone has sinned, God is just, and must punish sin. Lack of knowledge of God is no excuse, for everyone knows that God exists and everyone has rejected Him. No one deserves to go heaven; no one can get to heaven by anything they do. The only way to heaven is through Jesus, by trusting in Him as our only hope of forgiveness and salvation.
That is why we must go to the ends of the earth, from the largest cities to the most remote islands, to share Christianity with everyone we meet, often giving our lives to spread that message.
Sometimes is terrorism.
This is self-reflection: everyone believes what fits better to one, don't push your shit over others or risky getting killed with bows and arrows, and every now and then bombs.
Religions are very creative ancient defense mechanisms. It exists for you to have bonds to your group, for you to survive, and protecting the belief system is to protect your own. But this is not 1600 anymore, time to grow up. Take the good stuff and throw the toxic shit behind or put it all behind.
I get that you are much more aware of how it works in Christianity and Islam, but there is no majority of non-proselytizing religions.
Such a thing cannot exist in a Nash equilibrium. Think about it. All current faiths (and for that matter, ideologies) have spread much faster than people spread. MUCH faster. So they all proselytized.
It is sometimes a little bit irritating to hear people make the wildest claims about quite a few religions. Often about Buddhism people make the most outlandish claims, which presumably includes "non-proselytizing" in your comment. Now please don't think I'm singling out Buddhism here, it's just an example.
Because they did most of it starting in the middle ages and the Age of Discovery. In fact that's mostly what the Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits did in California, South America and Asia from 1500ish to well into the late 1800's.
To the extent that is true, it is a post-Vatican II reform (and proselytization is still an important function of Catholic missionary work, though the method of more persuasion by example.)
A bit of an odd example that the catholic church chooses to set...
Not in the West. In Africa and Asia, absolutely.
One of the Christian figurehead's final commands is paraphrased as "Go and preach the good news to everyone in the world". I speculate that's what these people are doing.
> "People thought he is a missionary because he had mentioned his position on God and that he was a believer on social media or somewhere online. But in a strict sense, he was not a missionary.
> "He was an adventurer. His intention was to meet the aborigines."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/21/asia/andaman-nicobar-us-missi...
Did Chau learn any Sentinelese? How was he planning on doing the proselytizing?
Also, not to nitpick, but the article does have other errors. For example, it says "Just more than a dozen people" live on the island, whereas all sources I can find say between 50 and 400 people live there.
I don't know, the Saudis just started letting women drive earlier this year. People do lots of weird things for religion - some of them you might not agree with, and some of them might be straight up dumb. The year doesn't matter.