|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 28, 2021 10:16:31 GMT
Does anybody have any views on this? My inclination is that uncontacted peoples should be left alone, but where does that leave the obligation to preach the Gospel?
|
|
|
Post by annie on Sept 29, 2021 14:35:23 GMT
Does anybody have any views on this? My inclination is that uncontacted peoples should be left alone, but where does that leave the obligation to preach the Gospel? St Paul is the model for this as well as St Thomas, St Francis Xavier and many others including our own St Patrick. Why leave people in ignorance of their God for want of care for their souls?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 29, 2021 20:19:18 GMT
The argument against is that it risks exposing the uncontacted peoples (mostly tribes in remote areas) to diseases against which they have no immunity. This is a legitimate concern which should be guarded against as much as possible. A more problematic argument is that evangelisation undermines indigenous culture; this is often linked to an over-idealised image of tribal culture, but it has some legitimacy. The Pachamama fiasco was a hamfisted attempt to address this concern.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 29, 2021 23:50:14 GMT
The argument against is that it risks exposing the uncontacted peoples (mostly tribes in remote areas) to diseases against which they have no immunity. This is a legitimate concern which should be guarded against as much as possible. A more problematic argument is that evangelisation undermines indigenous culture; this is often linked to an over-idealised image of tribal culture, but it has some legitimacy. The Pachamama fiasco was a hamfisted attempt to address this concern. I was thinking entirely of protecting these cultures from the dubious blessings of our civilization.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Oct 3, 2021 13:38:28 GMT
|
|