Why are almost Protestant countries richer than Catholic countries

  • Thread starter Thread starter anhphan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes that is what I am saying. The British did not have to accommodate a local culture in the Americas like the Spanish did. The natives were so sparse, there really was no “conquered” people.

And the prosperity of these colonies had everything to do with being able exploit the vast natural resources more or less unopposed, and nothing to do with Protestantism.
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
Yes that is what I am saying. The British did not have to accommodate a local culture in the Americas like the Spanish did. The natives were so sparse, there really was no “conquered” people.
Click to expand...
Hi!

Wait, so the extinction of native Americans and the relocation and theft, raping, pillaging, and murdering did not happen–it’s all a hollowood’s hoax?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Since the “reformation” began the thought that works of charity do not affect one’s justification, there may have been a tendency to put the urge to work more toward material wealth and prosperity. The “reformation” communities that were born in Germany, Switzerland and elsewhere in Europe placed more emphasis on individual worth and power, and less on corporate value. More importance on work as relating to earthly existence rather than heavenly reward.

The “Protestant work ethic” seems to relate more to worldly accomplishment than it does to works of charity. This is a mis-reading of Saint Paul, whose writings which appeared to minimize the need for works, was actually addressing the works of the Mosaic law, and not Christian works of charity, as Christ taught.

Before anyone flames, note that I used the qualifiers “may have been” and “seems to”
 
Last edited:
The Protestant work ethic includes working more than 40 hours per week.
 
MonteRCMS said:
The Protestant work ethic includes working more than 40 hours per week.
Click to expand...
Is a number of hours somehow specified. I know that many people seem to think it is virtuous to work more than 40 hours a week. It is one thing if you need to, but some people who work excessive hours are running away from something.
 
Wow, we must have gone through a different public school system.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
That’s right. And if you want to continue talking with me, you better avoid those.
 
jcrichton said:
Wow, we must have gone through a different public school system.

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
In case you didn’t catch my sarcasm, I will simply lay out my statement one more time. The native population density in North America in the 16th to 18th centuries was so low as to be immaterial to the colonization by the British and the French. The Spanish, on the other hand, landed in densely populated Central and South America where there were legitimate city states, kingdoms, and empires with which they had to contend.

The former allowed for direct control of natural resources, while the later allowed for control of resources through control of population centers and peoples. The Brits didn’t need to deal with the natives and essentially exiled them from the land. The Spanish, besides their Catholic convictions to convert the populace, were dealing with so many natives they had to develop some type of colonial system involving them, as they couldn’t just kill or get rid of them.

Comprende?
 
Last edited:
I think that we have moved past that… circle just don’t make for communication.

God Bless!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Comprendo: British good–no bad doing; Spaniards bad–bad Catholics. Got you!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
I don’t think anyone on this thread has suggested that. I am English, and I know acts done by this country in the past were wrong.
 
Yeah. I said nothing remotely close to that. All I said was that one nationality colonized a highly populated area, and another nationality colonized a very sparsely populated area. This shaped their approaches to colonization. I am also Catholic, so…

But you keep doing you man.
 
Hi, I think that you may have forgotten:
FirstFiveEighth said:
The natives were so sparse, there really was no “conquered” people.
Click to expand...
While I can agree with you that there was a difference in numbers, the reality remains that people were oppressed and extinguished by all colonization.

However, as in your closing statements, people do rationalize as they are able–just now people are damning Columbus for his poor treatment of the natives… never mind that he never made it to North America!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
Not sure if this is implied in the OP or not, but considering it’s posted in Apologetics I will guess it is.

Remember these words of Our Lord:

"Blessed are the poor: theirs is the Kingdom of God;

Woe to the rich: they have received their reward".

Portugal and the Phillipines are two nations with huge populations of very materially poor people yet who are very spiritually rich and devoutly Catholic - the Kingdom of God is theirs.

America and the UK are two nations with huge populations of very materially rich people yet who are very spiritually poor and nominally Protestant - woe to them, they have received their reward.
 
Last edited:
Wow!

All I can say to that is: LOL!

It is interesting how such truths are avoided or just brushed aside!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
jcrichton said:
Hi, I think that you may have forgotten:

FirstFiveEighth:

The natives were so sparse, there really was no “conquered” people.

While I can agree with you that there was a difference in numbers, the reality remains that people were oppressed and extinguished by all colonization.

However, as in your closing statements, people do rationalize as they are able–just now people are damning Columbus for his poor treatment of the natives… never mind that he never made it to North America!
Click to expand...
The problem here is that you are deliberately misreading me to argue against some point that I am not making and that is, frankly, irrelevant. When I said, “there really was no conquered people”, it was in reference to the fact that there were no cities to manage or large populations to rule. Yeah, there were little native villages but the North American Indian tribes basically lived in woven huts defended at most by a thin wooden palisade. They fished, hunted, grew subsistence crops and traded furs. So sure, if you are getting hung up on the word “conquered” the British did conquer the North American tribes in that they settled their land and pushed them continuously to the frontier. They did not, however, conquer them in the traditional sense where they would have taken ownership of their villages and cities and ruled their people. They did not really have to incorporate the natives into their colonial society. They simply got rid of them. Because there were no cities and there were no large populations to rule.
 
…or perhaps you did not see beyond the point you wanted to make and being a blanket statement omitted pertinent factors that indeed demonstrate that all powers that colonized territories had to subjugate the aborigines in that geographical sphere.

Just because people were nomads (as there are still some in Africa and certain places (if they have not been fully extinct) like Brazil it did not mean that their geographical reach could be determined by “setter”/“colonizers.” That would be akin to me moving into your beach house in “xyz” because you don’t really use it much or were not there when I arrived.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top