Was It "Unchristian" To Take The Land From Native Americans??.....

ewq1938 said:

God ordains all powers/governments which means he wanted the nation of America to be created.

Click to expand...

YHWH set up Persia, Babylon, Egypt, and all the other countries too.
None Christian.
I didn't say YHWH did not set up America for HIS OWN PURPOSE.
That wasn't the question.

It was totally UNCHRISTIAN - UNGODLY - and UNRIGHTEOUS for the white man to take the land.
This is beyond dispute.
White man who broke EVERY TREATY and LIED EVERY DAY - TOTALLY UNCHRISTIAN, UNGODLY, and UNRIGHTEOUS. Sons of disobedience and not obedience -
there was NOTHING
obedient to YHWH in taking the INDIANS LAND
nor in SLAUGHTERING THEM. (almost 15,000,000 of them - MORE THAN HITLER DID)

What would have happened if Christian people had reached to the Indians and negotiated however the Europeans settled in America?

I think Europeans would have settled, including by means of becoming adopted into tribes. Because Paul says that, in order to reach people for Jesus, he became "all things to all men" > please see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

And Europeans would have helped Indians to develop various technologies.

And the buffalo would possibly be the "cattle" which the Indians and settlers would eat and use commercially. We could be eating buffalo, now

But >

This continent would be made up of quite a number of sovereign native nations.

And when Hitler did his thing, I think we can see that things would have gone differently, if American nations were so numerous and not united. And then the Nazis and Japanese might have moved in and done quite a job on the culture in America.

I am not sure Christian people would have been able to negotiate with the Nazis and Japanese. But we would pray and trust God for how He would have us take advantage of whatever situation we had. This is what we do, now.

com7fy8 said:

And when Hitler did his thing, I think we can see that things would have gone differently, if American nations were so numerous and not united. And then the Nazis and Japanese might have moved in and done quite a job on the culture in America.

Click to expand...

Hitler and Germany was set up by YHWH - HE APPOINTED the leaders and the boundaries according to HIS WORD and HIS PURPOSE and HIS PLAN.
Even so,
there is a great mystery surrounding all that that is still unknown to most all the world.
That is how it is, I don't know if that is how it must be - but no one wants to know the TRUTH it seems, since YHWH PROMISED TO REVEAL THE TRUTH to everyone who seeks HIM and keeps seeking HIM (YHWH'S KINGDOM).
The secrets of YHWH'S KINGDOM Y'SHUA said require a pure heart to see. That leaves out most people on earth. (As Y'SHUA said several times)

com7fy8 said:

I am not sure Christian people would have been able to negotiate with the Nazis and Japanese. But we would pray and trust God for how He would have us take advantage of whatever situation we had. This is what we do, now.

Click to expand...

Like the ekklesia in the first century - trust YHWH - YHWH determines who is put up and who is pulled down -
and YHWH'S WORD says do not trust in the strength of horses or chariots (military might nor physical strength or means).

com7fy8 said:

@Archie the Preacher I think I see the point of your questions.

Click to expand...

Almost, but not quite.

To blame Christianity in any way, shape or form in what happened between the prior 'owners' of North American and the Government of the United States is misleading at best and outright fraud at worst. The indictment of Christianity stems from an atheistic oriented slander claiming so.

The dispute - erupting into warfare - between the prior owners and the U. S. Government arose from a series of misconceptions and misunderstandings on both sides.

For instance, the aboriginals didn't understand the goal of the (mostly at that time) European settlers. The 'whites' wanted to settle, establish farms, homes, cities and factories in permanent locations. The locals didn't understand that at all.

At the same time, the aboriginals lived a predominately nomadic lifestyle in the Great Plains areas. There were relatively few of them and they moved from place to place constantly living as 'hunter-gatherers'. The 'whites' didn't get that concept at more than a historic and superficial level. Yes, there were some aboriginals in the North East who lived in more or less permanent cities - more or less - and some in the South West who had 'pueblos' (a Spanish term, not indigenous language, by the way) but they were the minority. And it's noteworthy most of those groups were not particularly warring with the U. S.

Numerous 'treaties' were made. Unfortunately, the U. S. Government - at least those officials dealing with the 'treaties' were ignorant of the fact not even a single 'tribe' had a spokesman who represented them all. Even less, tribe 'A' didn't even pretend to speak for tribe 'B'.

There are more factors in this; I've just skimmed the surface of the history.

How many people died in the resolution? The total varies on who did the counting and what soapbox they climb. However, historical information shows the indigenous peoples killed about three times as many 'whites' as 'whites' killed 'reds'. So the 'genocide' claims are rather embellished.

The story about the intentional introduction of smallpox infected blankets? There is no evidence, only allegations of the fact. The accusations arose first prior to the onset of the American Revolution and is unsubstantiated at best. Even if true, the accusations were against an officer in the English Army and no one in the U. S. Government (which didn't exist yet.) Certainly the accusations do not include any type or remotely involved Christian entity.

Still, these are the days of 'victimhood' and 'vicarious guilt'. So on the one hand, there are those who pretend to being victims for something that happened nearly two-hundred fifty years ago and those who, having no other purpose in life it seems feel 'guilt' for something that happened nearly two-hundred fifty years ago. Neither of whom were involved at all in the original event.

Consider the fact that Native Americans engaged in cannibalism, ritual murder of rival tribesmen, and overall ungodly, savage conduct. Meanwhile the progressive, enlightened, and Christian Europeans brought God, order, and civilization to America. To say that it was sinful for the Europeans to take America from the Native Americans is not only wrong, but also inconsistent with biblical teaching. In the Old Testament, God instructs his chosen people to drive out and "take the land away" from savages such as the Canaanites, who practiced child sacrifice and engaged in other gruesome, ungodly behaviors. The Christian European colonists did likewise in America.

Had the Americas not been colonized by the West, it is likely that another country like China would have done it. The majority of Chinese people practice atheist religions like Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Had sinicization (meaning the assimilation of people into Chinese culture) taken place in the Americas instead of Westernization, God wouldn't have any place in the Western Hemisphere. Because the North and South American nations have a majority Christian population, it's far better that Europeans colonized the Americas than an ungodly nation like China.

The sins of one nation do not make the greater sins of another nation un-sinful.
It was wrong, period.

Tim Myers said:

I am simply asking was it "unchristian" for European settlers to have taken the land away from Native Americans??

Click to expand...

In the first place the land wasn't the possession of the Native Americans nor did they claim that it was.

There was a lot done in an "unchristian" way in this hemisphere in the last few centuries.

But then - who here is gullible enough to believe that all, or even the majority, of the European settlers were "Christians"? Certainly I'm not. Everyone who uses the handle "Christian" is not a true Christian. The majority in the world who use that title are not related to Christ now nor were they in the past.

What do you expect from a majority of settlers who were "Christian" in name only than "unchristian" activity?

Marvin Knox said:

In the first place the land wasn't the possession of the Native Americans nor did they claim that it was.

There was a lot done in an "unchristian" way in this hemisphere in the last few centuries.

But then - who here is gullible enough to believe that all, or even the majority, of the European settlers were "Christians"? Certainly I'm not. Everyone who uses the handle "Christian" is not a true Christian. The majority in the world who use that title are not related to Christ now nor were they in the past.

What do you expect from a majority of settlers who were "Christian" in name only than "unchristian" activity?

Click to expand...

No True Scotsman, eh?

Steve Petersen said:

No True Scotsman, eh?

Click to expand...

Perhaps not Scotsmen at all, Steve.

Muslims do 'unChristian' things all the time. Are you going to blame Christians and Christianity for that as well?

Archie the Preacher said:

Perhaps not Scotsmen at all, Steve.

Muslims do 'unChristian' things all the time. Are you going to blame Christians and Christianity for that as well?

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here knows history well enough to do that.

Archie the Preacher said:

Perhaps not Scotsmen at all, Steve.

Muslims do 'unChristian' things all the time. Are you going to blame Christians and Christianity for that as well?

Click to expand...

No, but I will point out a logical fallacy, called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Steve Petersen said:

No, but I will point out a logical fallacy, called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Click to expand...

I am familiar with the No True Scotsman fallacy. I will point out a logical fallacy myself. It's called the Completely Missed the Boat fallacy.

It's when one fails to understand the premise of the argument is flawed, but still holds on to the flawed premise for unknown reasons.

Love of money?

Steve Petersen said:

No True Scotsman, eh?

Click to expand...

Not at all.

Rather - “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you."

AND

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

I'm just stating the likely fact that the majority of "Christendom" are not born again Christians (the only true Christians there are IMO).

Marvin Knox said:

Not at all.

Rather - “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you."

AND

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

I'm just stating the likely fact that the majority of "Christendom" are not born again Christians (the only true Christians there are IMO).

Click to expand...

Well, certainly Jesus knows who his true Scotsmen are, but we don't.

Steve Petersen said:

Well, certainly Jesus knows who his true Scotsmen are, but we don't.

Click to expand...

Obviously. Who said otherwise?