Was it morally justified to colonise America?

[Michaelangelo]

You never specified that you wanted verses. But the story on the cross should suffice. If not, there the cases where God either orders the killing of people not having anything to do with a particular situation beside being born into it (children at the time of the flood, in Sodom, in Egypt and the son of David). Or that God is perfectly ok with people being killed over a bet (Numbers 14, Job 1).

 

[silentwitness]

If you were an Irish person starving to death in the 1840’s with half your family already dead, no food and an occupying power that preferred if you died then there wasn’t much of a choice.

It is not like those people were sitting down with a great knowledge of the Americas and thinking about how best to displace the Natives there.

 

[Ridgerunner]

For a brief overview of the colonization of the Americas may I recommend the opening chapters or Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee ?

I have not read it. But the era of the “horse Indians” was very short. Before the horse, the plains were almost devoid of people. There were millions of pounds of protein on the hoof but almost no way to access it. Buffalo are migratory, fast and mean. When Indians got the horse, they could follow the herds and run them down. A number of tribes moved onto the plains and underwent a population explosion. It wasn’t long before they came into conflict with each other and with whites. Ultimately, the whites prevailed, largely by depriving the Indians of their food supply; the buffalo. It would have happened anyway because as many buffalo as there were when the “horse era” began, consumption progressively outran buffalo reproduction.

The “horse Indian” era lasted about a century.

 

[sealabeag]

This thread has been somewhat derailed, which is fine, it happens, but can someone explain to me what human sacrifices in the bible that God approved of??

 

[sealabeag]

@Genesis315 if you get a chance to reply to this post (the one I’m replying to here) I’d appreciate it!

 

[sealabeag]

Yeah, that doesn’t fit the definition of human sacrifice. Is what those of you who mentioned it were referring to?
PS the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New.

 

[Genesis315]

Oh sorry, missed that. I’m pretty ignorant on all the details of that area, but as a hypothetical, they should seek to do it in an orderly way with the cooperation of the Mongolian authorities, who do exercise jurisdiction over those areas. The Mongolians should be generous but place limits if needed to ensure their current citizens are not unduly harmed. In extremis, I think it could be done “illegally” if survival depended on it (the same principle allows a starving person in extremis to pick and eat an apple from another’s orchard, without it being stealing–since ultimately all goods are for the sustenance of all).

 

[sealabeag]

the same principle allows a starving person in extremis to pick and eat an apple from another’s orchard, without it being stealing–since ultimately all goods are for the sustenance of all

Well this is news to me! You learn something new every day.

What would you say to those who argue “It was the Native Americans’ land” with regards America? And therefore, I assume the implication is, nobody had the right to take it? I realise that it was at one point not occupied by anyone, and Asian people migrated to what is now America, but are there other arguments against this notion?

Also, with regards private property - how does that start? I mean… how can a person just arrive somewhere and say “This land is mine now”. I know the Church affirms the right to private property, but what gives someone the right to claim a piece of land, and what would have prevented the first European settlers from laying claim to absolutely massive swathes of land?

I hope you don’t mind me asking you questions and sorry if they are a bit confused, but you have good answers and my brain is a bit useless sometimes!

 

[blackforest]

You never specified that you wanted verses.

I posted a link for you to consider. Verses from you are optional, but a substantive response is all that I wanted.

But the story on the cross should suffice.

The story of the Cross is A) a story about the death penalty, a practice of which nearly every world culture has a history and B) not the same thing as routine, repeated, ritual sacrifice to appease demanding and insatiable deities.

The early Hebrews have numerous tales of tragedies attributed to the wrath of God. They are another time and culture away from the colonial Spaniards.

 

[goout]

This thread has been somewhat derailed, which is fine, it happens, but can someone explain to me what human sacrifices in the bible that God approved of??

Those with fundamentalist interpretations of scripture will read the slaying of the Amalakites in literalist fashion, ie effect that God factually commanded the Israelites in the slaying of women and children.

The justification for this type of reading is
A) God has the power of life and death
B) those slain were not innocents

A is true and B is a real stretch. But both are theologically very weak justifications.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

Not only was it morally justified it was salvific.

 

[goout]

How is colonization per se salvific?

 

[commenter]

History accounts prior to 1960 tended to minimize the experience of the Native Americans. Everything important began with Europeans.
Reports of “savagery” were played up.

Today the media pushes an idealized view of pre Columbian life. No wars, slavery, exploitation, no human sacrifice. Religion that brought all into deeper spirituality with nature, and each other, rather than Christian imperialism.

This revisionist view is pushed by people who are seldom Native Americans, who have an agenda against Christianity in the present.

 

[Michaelangelo]

[The story of the Cross is A) a story about the death penalty, a practice of which nearly every world culture has a history and B) not the same thing as routine, repeated, ritual sacrifice to appease demanding and insatiable deities.

It either was or wasn’t a human sacrifice. There is no limit below which a sacrifice doesn’t count as a sacrifice.

The early Hebrews have numerous tales of tragedies attributed to the wrath of God. The are another time and culture away from the colonial Spaniards.

But the church teaches specifically that God is unchanging and the source of all moralilty. So either it has always been ok with innocent dying or it has never been ok.

• Were the kids in the flood just collateral damage and not killed on purpose?
• How were the kids in Egypt not a direct sacrifice to prove who was the boss?
• Was the spirit of God coming over Samson as he murdered 30 men to steal their clothes so he could pay a bet, not a approval of mass murder?
• God gives the Accuser the green light to do anything to Job’s family, and indeed he does.

 

[blackforest]

It either was or wasn’t a human sacrifice. There is no limit below which a sacrifice doesn’t count as a sacrifice.

No one is saying it’s not a sacrifice. To compare it to ritual sacrifice of children to Aztec gods is apples-to-oranges disingenuous.

But the church teaches specifically that God is unchanging and the source of all moralilty.

God can be unchanging, but human interpretations of Him vary greatly. This can be hard to explain to atheists and agnostics who take the Bible as literally as Christian fundamentalists.

 

[whatistrue]

It either was or wasn’t a human sacrifice

It was not. You seem to be stretching the definition to fit your own notions rather than using the existing one.

 

[Athanasiy]

:grinoor Mongolians were used as example on this debate, but don’t forget that Chingiz Chan was from their tribe

 

[JimG]

I’m trying to imagine what the American continents would be like today if the European explorers had arrived, come across some native tribes, and said “well, let’s just leave this place alone and ignore it because it’s already occupied.”

In any case I don’t think the missionaries would have left it alone because there was a duty to evangelize.

 

[PennyinCanada]

Which country are we talking about here?

To what purpose are these history lessons? Is it an interest in history? Watching the TV regarding the US, there seems to be a huge effort to divide people even more, by race, by economics, by age, by religion. An effort to make you hate your country. An effort to stir up anger, and to what end? What is this accomplishing?

When I was growing up I had an alcoholic parent. A family history of alcoholism. Actually, all the men died before 50, killing themselves with booze. The church gave me new life, a new focus, a new direction. If I had a family member who kept bring up where I came from, the booze, the drugs, the anger, frustration, poverty of love and caring, I would stop them in mid sentence, and say “I don’t need to relive that”. It serves no purpose, and all that past garbage can be brought to the Cross of Christ, and I can move on in blessing. That’s the good news of Christ.

What is this focus on darkness and sin? We can walk in blessing today, because of Christ, and that past has no power over me any more. This is our message today. Before us is blessing. Do we want it or not? Make a smart decision today.

 

[Michaelangelo]

No one is saying it’s not a sacrifice. To compare it to ritual sacrifice of children to Aztec gods is apples-to-oranges disingenuous.

How so?

God can be unchanging, but human interpretations of Him vary greatly. This can be hard to explain to atheists and agnostics who take the Bible as literally as Christian fundamentalists.

And my position is disingenuous?