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

[Raggedyman]

No True Scotsman, eh?

So Steve
Are you saying all those people who killed Indians were Christians and how do you know that
Sounds like your argument is based on assumption, not logic

 

[Steve Petersen]

So Steve
Are you saying all those people who killed Indians were Christians and how do you know that
Sounds like your argument is based on assumption, not logic

Did I say 'all' who killed Indians were Christians? NO.

Some who killled Indians called themselves Christians

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Did I say 'all' who killed Indians were Christians? NO.

Some who killled Indians called themselves Christians

So not all those involved with the expansion of the U. S. were Christians, but it is a Christian problem? Is that your point?

 

[Steve Petersen]

So not all those involved with the expansion of the U. S. were Christians, but it is a Christian problem? Is that your point?

It is a Christian problem in that I doubt Jesus would be involved in genocide.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So not all those involved with the expansion of the U. S. were Christians, but it is a Christian problem? Is that your point?

In the 50's and 60's at least(last century)
apparently all the schools taught that the usa was a christian nation.
from the 70's onward, we find out otherwise.
same with almost everything that was once taught as if true.
we find out later no,
rather, like it is written in YHWH'S WORD,
"the lie will be pushed as the truth,
and the truth will be called a lie".
In many churches/ classes the last 30 years,
it was openly taught "nothing is as it seems"
and even members (of the church) 'believers' would all lie and were expected to lie in court if they went to court. the rule is not "no lie", but rather "no get caught" !!!!!!!!!!

 

[tatteredsoul]

This may seem like a silly question or a silly topic for a post, but I have not seen anyone else ask the question, or bring up the subject, or (hopefully) start a discussion thread about it......

I feel this question, as well as this subject, is a two-edged sword, so to speak.....

On the one hand, we can claim that it was "unchristianlike" and wrong and a terrible injustice for Europeans to come over to North and South America and take all the land from the Native Americans and reduce them all to minority status......

But, on the other hand, we could claim that, had Europeans not dominated the native peoples of North and South America, nations like the U.S., Canada, Brazil and the rest would not be a great and as prosperous as they are today.....

Nor as "Christian" as they are.......

However, I am not taking sides, one way or the other, on this subject......

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

You don't need to be a based to be great.


It was absolutely wrong what happened with the natives, because it was not only about a manifest, or a notion of entitlement. The natives were brutally killed, raped, enslaved, and killed off by their invaders. This, after the natives helped them with some survival tips.

That's why the natives had to be dehumanized in order for the entire event to make sense. If you say the natives were brutal savages who had no heart, then your conscious, and the consciousness of other generations will seem vindicated. You can "kill off" several scores of thousands of natives in their native land, because they are savages!

The same psychology was applied to slaves.

It is unchristian.

And remember, you may think you civilized a nation, or made it great, but that is an OPINION. How do we know these natives did NOT want to be technological prisoners, and we're perfectly fine with their way of life? We likely dont, because most natives, slaves and their history were obliterated.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

It is a Christian problem in that I doubt Jesus would be involved in genocide.

So, you are saying the entire action was against Christian principles; is that correct?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

You don't need to be a based to be great.

I think there's something missing or mistakenly recorded in this statement. It doesn't make sense as currently presented.

It was absolutely wrong what happened with the natives...

An opinion, only. An opinion not shared with many others.

...because it was not only about a manifest, or a notion of entitlement.

So, what else was it about?

The natives were brutally killed, raped, enslaved, and killed off by their invaders.

Not exactly. Many on both sides were killed, something like three times as many whites as aboriginals. Non-combatants were killed on both sides at about the same rate. Rape occurred on both sides, probably not as many as historical re-writers would have. I know of no examples of aboriginals being enslaved. There are several examples of aboriginals taking and keeping slaves of anyone not of their own; including whites and other aboriginal groups.

This, after the natives helped them with some survival tips.

So the actions of a few members of the Northeastern tribes should have shielded the plains groups? Any idea how that transference of exculpatory benefit works?

That's why the natives had to be dehumanized in order for the entire event to make sense.

That is a well worn and well debunked accusation. There was no 'had' needed. The aboriginals of the West lived lives of poverty and poor living conditions. Nearly all were unsettled groups of nomads who lived where ever the food source took them. (Except for a few in what is now New Mexico. They were considered 'prey' for the nomads.) The aboriginals mostly considered any one of another tribal group to be inferior. Those were the reasons most European settlers though the aboriginal groups were 'savages'.

As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, both sides simply could not understand the other. The 'tragedy' of the entire account was a clash of cultures.

The same psychology was applied to slaves.

So, prehistoric people had the same mentality as the North American aboriginals about 'outsiders'? Probably.

It is unchristian.

It is distinctly un-Christian. But then, (virtually) none of the North American aboriginals were Christian, so one cannot blame them for acting that way.

And remember, you may think you civilized a nation, or made it great, but that is an OPINION.

Ah. The United States - at least prior to the hostile take-over of the progressives - was not a great, civilized nation? Well, that is an opinion as well. I guess we're even on that.

How do we know these natives did NOT want to be technological prisoners, and we're perfectly fine with their way of life?

What's a 'tecnological prisoner'? I assume you meant "were" (past tense of third person plural of "to be") instead of "we're" (contraction of "we are"). How do you know they were 'perfectly fine' with their way of life? Just because some say 'the old way was better'? Which old way? The individual responsibility or the starving and poverty? The nature of the nuclear family or the hideous warfare and fate of the losers?

We likely dont, because most natives, slaves and their history were obliterated.

Which I find rather inaccurate. There has been more accurate 'history' of the North American aboriginals by the 'white oppressors' than exist from the aboriginal groups themselves.

As I pointed out, the initial question is flawed, as it presumes the entire problem was occasioned by Christian teachings. Such a presumption is unquestionably flawed, once one takes more than superficial look.

 

[W2L]

The natives themselves believed that no man could own the land, so how could Europeans take what the Natives didn't own?

In that aspect alone, the natives seemed more Christ like than the Europeans.


Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.


1 Corinthians 7:29 the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So, you are saying the entire action was against Christian principles; is that correct?

genocide is ALWAYS sin.

 

[Raggedyman]

It is a Christian problem in that I doubt Jesus would be involved in genocide.

What about the Scotsman, Scotsmen
They must all be according to what you previously stated
The no true Scotsman argument

How does your no true Scotsman argument apply when you then say that there were non christians who committed some of the crimes there

We're the non Christians Scotsmen pretending not to be Scottish or were they scots pretending to be christian or were they Christian pretending to be non christian Scots

I am at a loss understanding your comment and how the non true Scotsman argument apples in context

It is unacceptable for Christians to kill, even Scotish christians.
Those who fought in the Indian wars, passed laws, stole land were wrong, no matter their nationality or faith
The non true Scotsman argument is way out of context.
Many people then did not identify as Christian.

 

[Raggedyman]

genocide is ALWAYS sin.

Agree
Except
When it is a penalty being handed down by a righteous God to carry out justice, Genocide is always a sin
Annoying nit picker arnt I

 

[ewq1938]

genocide is ALWAYS sin.

God has committed genocide but God cannot sin.

 

[JackRT]

A great deal of the history of the past 500 years involves what has come to be called the "Doctrine of Discovery". This originated as a series of papal bulls issued in the 15th and 16th centuries. Essentially this doctrine stated that if a man should discover a land in which none of the inhabitants were Christian then he had the right to claim this land for his sovereign. If these people refused to be converted and resisted their new condition, it was justifiable to exterminate and/or enslave them. In a USA Supreme Court decision in 1818 a form of this doctrine was taken into US law. Sadly this decision formed the legal basis for the ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide of the aboriginal peoples and nations of the USA. We speak grandly of "the rule of law" but we broke almost every treaty we ever signed with these people. Is it any wonder that we are viewed with great suspicion?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

God has committed genocide but God cannot sin.

"Although the term itself is of recent origin,.......
Defining genocide: the Nürnberg Charter and the genocide convention
In his work Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (1944), Lemkin noted that a key component of genocide was the

criminal intent to destroy or to cripple permanently a human group. The acts are directed against groups as such, and individuals are selected for destruction only because they belong to these groups.

 

[Hetta]

Wow. Christians actually saying that "God has committed genocide." That doesn't exactly promote that all loving God I hear about otherwise.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Wow. Christians actually saying that "God has committed genocide." That doesn't exactly promote that all loving God I hear about otherwise.

Read the definition of genocide.
No one who belongs to YHWH says HE did any such thing.

 

[ewq1938]

Dictionary.com:

noun
1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Has God done this? Yes.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

"Although the term itself is of recent origin,.......
Defining genocide: the Nürnberg Charter and the genocide convention
In his work Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (1944), Lemkin noted that a key component of genocide was the

criminal intent to destroy or to cripple permanently a human group. The acts are directed against groups as such, and individuals are selected for destruction only because they belong to these groups.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Dictionary.com:

noun
1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Has God done this? Yes.

You chose a definition to suit your (or some other wrong) purpose, not the TRUTH.
No worries.
YHWH can and will do as HE PLEASES.

 

[JackRT]

Wow. Christians actually saying that "God has committed genocide." That doesn't exactly promote that all loving God I hear about otherwise.

As a Christian I would not accuse God of genocide but I would point out that a very great deal of Genesis and Exodus both are mythology and tribal legend. Genocide is the way tribal wars were fought. That has continued right up to modern times as witness Rwanda and the Hutus vs the Tutsis and Kosovo where it was Christians vs Muslims (just different sort of tribes). Saying "God told made me do it" is always a very convenient excuse.