Apocalypto

[MrJim]

I don't get to the theater much, but I went to see this yesterday. Historical movies I like (even though I take them with a bucket of salt) and I'd not seen anything before of the Mayans.

Yeah, it was visceral but different. I watch almost all my dvd's with subtitles on so reading the movie was preferred (and my hearing is excellent thank you). It was a pretty crowded theater, which made my "jumping" at parts sort of embarrassing but so what ?

Anyhow, after all the blood and human sacrifices seeing the European ships with their soldiers and priests coming ashore my first thought was "What took you so long?". My first impression was that finally someone is going to bring some civilization to this place, and bring an end to this brutal world. And it gave me a gut impression of the grateful attitude (and dare I say pride) of being of Western European descent.

HA, then the more I got to thinking about things I remembered that Western Europe was a land of barbarians too, and they were just a little ahead in the timeline.

Question is: In regards to these old civilizations, whether Mayans or Aztecs (I hesitate to call the Mayans ancient-it just wasn't that long ago) is it the bringing of the gospel, even in the broken vessels of Conquistadors, that helped in civilizing the societies? I may not have worded that the best, but I think you understand.

 

[Danfrey]

Were the native people of the Americas civilized or conquered? The message that came to the native people was one of superiority and firepower more than one of the gospel. A heathen is a heathen out of ignorance, a Christian is a heathen by choice.

 

[MrJim]

Were the native people of the Americas civilized or conquered? The message that came to the native people was one of superiority and firepower more than one of the gospel. A heathen is a heathen out of ignorance, a Christian is a heathen by choice.

I guess that's what I meant by "broken vessels", that via the conquering they were made to be civilized...guess that sorta sounds like an "ends justifying the means" arguement.

 

[CelticRose]

I guess the movie stopped before we got around to what the Europeans did to the Mayans etc. Not really my area of history but I did a unit with my youngest last year & all sides involved were bloodthirsty & savage. The only truely civilising power is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - & I'm not so sure very many of the first Spaniards had that.

 

[CelticRose]

Oh, & btw, it looks like a fascinating film but not one I can take the kiddies to so I probably shan't see it.

 

[Danfrey]

I guess that's what I meant by "broken vessels", that via the conquering they were made to be civilized...guess that sorta sounds like an "ends justifying the means" arguement.

About a year ago, I had a conversation with a man who I respect quite a bit about the native Americans and the European settlers. He looked me in the eye and asked me "isn't there a point were we just have to realize that the Europeans won". It was like this idea that what happened was ok because the Christians who settled this country overpowered the indigenous people. I choke on the concept the "our founding fathers" were Christians. This is were I lean heavy toward the intolerant side. Many will try to be accepting of other peoples beliefs to the point of accepting false doctrines as an alternative approach to Christianity. Consider the idea of war. Many well intended people who claim to follow Christ are willing to kill to defend the American way of life. For me there is no gray area when it comes to this issue.

If someone is willing to resort to physical violence they are not following Christ. Let me add to this the idea that I don't think that belief alone condemns, but for those that are in a situation to act on their belief, I pray that they find repentance. The early Christians and the early Anabaptists were pretty blunt when it came to this issue, but modern Anabaptism finds it unloving to speak the truth.

So, what does this have to do with the Spanish Conquistadors? Like many who came before them, I don't believe what the Spanish brought to Latin America was Christianity. It was an oppressive religion willing to kill in order to keep people in subjection.

One final note: Does this mean Daniel believes that only Anabaptists are Christian? No, I believe that throughout history, there has been a remnant of true followers of Christ within many of the groups that didn't necessarily support his teachings as an institution.

 

[MrJim]

Yeah, I agree. What I'm wondering is if things are better in Mexico now than they were in the days of the Mayans and the Aztecs. What changed was the conquest of the nations and the introduction of Western civilization, and along with that the Christian faith.

Now I'm suggesting that a Crusade sort of evangelism is justified; rather, I'm wondering if perhaps God used the Western nations to punish the native tribes for what they were doing--a la OT techniques of punishment (which cuts both ways, since Israel was in turn punished by other nations). And in the backwash, so to speak, Christianity was brought in.

Just sorta musing here...it is a dangerous road to tread, for it lays the groundwork for some to create "religous" warring as justified, such as the battle now with Islam that some consider to be a religious war. Rather, I'm just looking back in history and wondering if things are better because of the conquistadors. In school history class, Cortez & Pizarro weren't really presented as good or bad guys, just sort of neutral.

 

[vespasia]

I guess all theories about this simply shows human nature for what it really is.

 

[Danfrey]

In my own life, God has managed to work out my mistakes for my good in the end. For instance...Candice and I met when we were not serving God. Our relationship was anything but Godly. Later in our marriage we both began to serve God together.

I wonder if this was not the situation through much of history. Has God taken man's mistakes and made good come out of them in the end?