...probably because this thread is about what's in the OP and the conquest of Israel isn't mentioned anywhere in it. If you'd like to discuss that subject you should probably start a thread about it where that can be discussed.
tulc(hopes that answers Davy's question)
The take over of this country had to come, it was inevitable---the slaughter of the Natives did not have to happen as it did. They were not as the Pagans that Israel had to wipe out. Most of the American natives were peaceful, very spiritual.
LOL! Wasn't talking about the Central and South Americans. I was mostly thinking of the North American Native Indians. The human sacrifice is why I think God sent the Spaniards---brutal in their own way, but God always detested human sacrifices. Anyway---this is, Off Topic. Point being this idiot thinks there was nothing here before the whites where there had been many, many tribes, however, a lot of the tribes had been decimated by disease also. They had no resistance to the diseases of the whites. The US is prophesied in the book of Rev. to come up and it did. It was going to happen, we did not have to be so brutal about it.
...there's a video of Santorum saying what the OP said he said, so I'm not sure what you think is "bogus"...This thread is a BOGUS thread,
...which is why it's in this particular forum.all political,
That's also not in the OP. So if what you'd like to talk about is A) Israel B) the meaning of the word "bogus" or C) avoid anything political you might want to A) start a different thread to discuss that, B) look up the meaning of the word "bogus" and C) avoid the forums where political stuff is discussed.and has nothing to do with Christ Jesus.
When we British arrived we were confronted by a mainly nomadic and primitive culture that had contributed next to nothing to global development or civilization. It had no monuments or accomplishments of any note at all really. Also, they were hell-bound pagans so they probably got what was coming to them. The real problems mainly occurred after the British left and Americans started warring with newly converted Indian Christians and stealing their land and properties. Few Americans including most native Americans would want to live dammed and at the level of poverty and low technological development that the first white settlers found in America when they arrived.
When we British arrived we were confronted by a mainly nomadic and primitive culture that had contributed next to nothing to global development or civilization. It had no monuments or accomplishments of any note at all really. Also, they were hell-bound pagans so they probably got what was coming to them. The real problems mainly occurred after the British left and Americans started warring with newly converted Indian Christians and stealing their land and properties. Few Americans including most native Americans would want to live dammed and at the level of poverty and low technological development that the first white settlers found in America when they arrived.
Yup, they didn't even know what the wheel was, many were involved in cannibalism, and their religion was demonic. And I'm 1% Indian.
I had an Apache hunting guide once who said his great grandmother was stolen from another tribe during a raid.
The native American Indian were peaceful and very spiritual? That thinking shows you're not very aware of the pagan culture. I suggest The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer (https://www.templeofearth.com/books/goldenbough.pdf)
John 4:21-24
21 Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.
KJV
I'm reading about the Comanches now and they killed men, women and children of the enemy tribes they attacked, long before the white man came. The also kidnapped kids and made them slaves. They killed babies because they didn't want the burden of caring for infants. They killed all men and most women, although some women could be made slaves as well.
The natives of the North East like the Iroquois were brutal in how they treated their enemies. They also practiced cannibalism.
Yes the white's didn't always treat them fairly, but the fear of the savages was justified in that time era.
I also heard the interview of the author and he described how things were and how they became the strongest most feared natives of the American Planes.
Your history of the United States is flawed.
The British saw the natives as savages and would rarely if ever live among them.
The Native Americans would've been better served had they sided with the French during the French Indian War. The French traded cultural knowledge with the Indians and even lived among them and adopted the good parts of their country. In fact, they traded orphan children to live with each other in order to learn the language of culture, so they could bring it back to their own people.
In the continental US, their societies were mostly small villages practicing subsistance agriculture or hunter-gatherers - barring the odd exception like the Iroquois confederation.
So...if you "discover" a street you didn't know was in the area where you live, you can claim to be the guy who discovered it? and if the people living on that street aren't living how you think they should, you would than have the right to throw them out because, after all, you're the guy who "discovered" that street?To say we didn't discover America because it was already there is like saying Marie Curie didn't discover radium and no planet has ever been discovered.
Might makes right I suppose?
When the Chinese finally surpass us technologicallly economically and culturally they will have earned the right to supplant us?
The founding fathers were a far cry from orthodoxy. Deist is perhaps a generous label.
As for cannibalism, that is a complex issue. There is evidence of cannibalism in Europe due to prolonged hunger. The same reasons are cited for the incidences in pre-colonial America
So...if you "discover" a street you didn't know was in the area where you live, you can claim to be the guy who discovered it?
The historic native population is quite able to prove parity with European culture.
...there's a video of Santorum saying what the OP said he said, so I'm not sure what you think is "bogus"...
...which is why it's in this particular forum.
That's also not in the OP. So if what you'd like to talk about is A) Israel B) the meaning of the word "bogus" or C) avoid anything political you might want to A) start a different thread to discuss that, B) look up the meaning of the word "bogus" and C) avoid the forums where political stuff is discussed.
tulc(hopes those suggestions help)
Cahokia was long abandoned by this time, so it really would not count here. Similarly, even if it had not been, it would be an exception to prove the rule. Cahokia still was essentially a stone-based technological level; and if we correlate the geographical continental US with Europe (very similar size), even thirty Cahokias would not be equivalent of all the cities and kingdoms from Portugal to Muscovy.Cahokia - Wikipedia
How many "odd exceptions" does it take? The point of this thread is to show Santorum inarticulate at best and more truthfully, flat out wrong and bigoted. The historic native population is quite able to prove parity with European culture.
Europe was largely a market-based economy, not subsistance-based. For instance, much of the midlands of England was given over to sheep for the Flanders textile industry, fed by Hansa supplied Baltic wheat. The entire system was underwritten by large Italian banking families and the countryside supported the various merchant guilds in the towns or leagues like the Hansa. The peasantry largely had to pay rents, taken in cash by this stage, thus needing to produce more than subsistance to pay for this and additional milling fees and the like. The serfs planted what their lord wanted, which was driven by what brought him most ready cash, with the excess being what they lived off. All this meant that most villages and farmers specialised in one or two products with limited market gardening (as transport was still inefficient). Not even mentioning the importation of luxuries like wine (which even a cursory reading of texts, like Shakespeare or Chaucer, would show was drunk at all levels). The whole is quite different from villages in the Americas, with a dynamic partnership between the Towns and the countryside and long-distance trade.Much of Europe was made of small villages practicing subsistence agriculture at the time of America's "discovery." They would have gladly hunted and gathered, had the Crown allowed peasants on their land. Why do you think they risked so much to cross over to a larger land? Truly, the European commoner (our progenitor) was the more impoverished culture. Or did you assume affinity with royalty?
So...that would be a yes or a no? Because what you posted didn't actually address what I asked.Native Americans had no streets, I suppose they had trails on which they transported their goods and slaves. Got anything else?
Still not seeing anything that's "bogus" in it. Did you look up what bogus means? because according to the dictionary it means:It's a bogus thread because it's about anger at what Santorum said, which really doesn't amount to much anyway, since it's a stupid statement.
none of which would seem to apply to the OP, since he did indeed say it and then people reacted to what he actually said.not genuine or true; fake.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?