Was it morally justified to colonise America?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
whatistrue said:
It was not. You seem to be stretching the definition to fit your own notions rather than using the existing one.
Click to expand...
The church thinks otherwise. See paragraphs 545, 561, 606, 611-618, 1182, 1199, and a whole bunch more, in the catechism.
 
Not sure what you guys are discussing as I’m too lazy to read the whole thread as it’s kinda departed from my original question, but if it is whether Christ’s death was a sacrifice, yes it was. But it is not comparable to any other sacrifice.
 
sealabeag said:
Not sure what you guys are discussing as I’m too lazy to read the whole thread as it’s kinda departed from my original question, but if it is whether Christ’s death was a sacrifice, yes it was. But it is not comparable to any other sacrifice.
Click to expand...
This spin-off came about when someone justified what was done to Americans by the Aztecs performing human sacrifices and I pointed out that Christians worship a God who seems ok with human sacrifices.
 
Michaelangelo said:
This spin-off came about when someone justified what was done to Americans by the Aztecs performing human sacrifices and I pointed out that Christians worship a God who seems ok with human sacrifices.
Click to expand...
To be fair you basically said the Christian religion was morally equivalent to the Aztec religion which requires bloody human sacrifices.
 
Nah, He is not okay with human sacrifices. Christ’s death is not comparable to human sacrifice.
 
StudentMI said:
To be fair you basically said the Christian religion was morally equivalent to the Aztec religion which requires bloody human sacrifices.
Click to expand...
And the Christian religion does not require a human sacrifice?
 
StudentMI said:
I’m not engaging any more with your lack of Christian theology of the Cross. I suggest reading up on it.
Click to expand...
. . . . The catechism is crystal clear about the cross being a sacrifice.
 
Last edited:
Because Jesus Christ is God. He gave himself freely in redemption for us.
 
Being fully human it WAS a human sacrifice. Check the catechism.
 
No, I agree that it was a sacrifice. However it is not comparable to any other human sacrifices committed by human beings, as 1. Those crucifying Jesus were not aware that it was a sacrifice, to them it was simply an execution 2. Christ was a willing victim, and God, and giving himself over to death for our sins.
It is not comparable in its nature to human sacrifice, although it may be in appearance.
 
sealabeag said:
No, I agree that it was a sacrifice. However it is not comparable to any other human sacrifices committed by human beings, as 1. Those crucifying Jesus were not aware that it was a sacrifice, to them it was simply an execution
Click to expand...
How is that a criterion? And where are the criteria stated?
  1. Christ was a willing victim, and God, and giving himself over to death for our sins.
Click to expand...
Norse religion used human sacrifices as well and for some rituals they used willing victims. Without having studied the topic specifically I would argue that in cultures where humans were sacrificed for religious purposes there are most likely two kinds of sacrifices. One would be killing prisoners and other unvilling participants. The other would be killing willing participants. Don’t just assume all victims were unvilling.
It is not comparable in its nature to human sacrifice, although it may be in appearance.
Click to expand...
Again, read the catechism.
 
sealabeag said:
No, I agree that it was a sacrifice. However it is not comparable to any other human sacrifices committed by human beings, as 1. Those crucifying Jesus were not aware that it was a sacrifice, to them it was simply an execution 2. Christ was a willing victim, and God, and giving himself over to death for our sins.
It is not comparable in its nature to human sacrifice, although it may be in appearance.
Click to expand...
It was of course God taking on human form to speak against human sacrifice by being one Himself and linking the sin of men to the forgiveness of God in a New Covenant.

God was the perfect sacrifice and His request was to memorialise that sacrifice as an eternal forgiveness of sin.

Any subsequent action of the Christian taking part in new human sacrifices would be a rejection of the New Covenant as offered by God and thus a rejection of His forgiveness of sin.

It would be an embrace of the sin which God wished discontinued except in the memoralised form.
 
Last edited:
I suggest reading Scalp Dance. It is made up of firsthand accounts of the war against the Plains Indians from the perspective of the settlers and the US Army.
 
No, if I remember correctly, they were Kaskaskians. Definitely not Cherokee, as they aren’t from Missouri. I remember hearing the story on Catholic radio. I’ll have to see if I can find it online. The whole group was forced to leave St. Louis and their priest went with them and died with them. It was a horrible story!
 
You might be right. Apparently the Kaskaskia lived peacefully with the French for a long time. Their number has been estimated between 6,000 and 20,000, either of which was large for an INdian tribe. However, disease and war with other Indians reduced their number over time to about 200. Then the Ottawa made war on them and reduced them further. Ultimately the remnants were, indeed, removed to NE Oklahoma, where they were absorbed by other tribes.

The story is probably as bad as you say in the removal. But we need to realize that eastern Oklahoma is called the “Green Country” by Oklahomans, and for just reason. It’s not some desert southwest kind of place. It’s green and in many parts exceptionally beautiful and rich.
 
Allegra said:
But the some of the methods used by Europeans in the Americas were obviously immoral.
Click to expand...
Many people throughout history have moved, settled, displaced, etc. Plenty of them were not exactly kind and gentle.

My question is why it’s only Europeans who are constantly held accountable; why we’re sitting in judgment on ages past when this sort of thing (for better or worse) was pretty much how the world was, if we want future generations sitting in judgment on us the way we judge others, but most importantly:

What is the point of this discussion anymore? Nobody is colonising anyone today. Are we going to un-colonise America if we decide it was not morally justified?

I personally think it would be more important to look ahead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top