Did Europeans steal the land from the natives?

[NathanH83]

And was it moral to do so?

 

[Lamb]

I moved this thread to the Ethics & Debate forum.

 

[Lees]

And was it moral to do so?

No, we didn't steal it. We defeated them and took it.

Morality plays no role in it. It's about war.

When the Jews took over Palestine, book of Joshua, did they steal it?

Did God steal the land of Palestine from the heathen?

Was God moral in doing so? Silly questions...I know.

Lees

 

[Lamb]

Was it moral when one tribe took the land of another tribe?

 

[Andrew]

Cannibalism, mass ritual blood sacrifices, tribes slaughtering neighboring tribes... they weren't all that nice.

Plus from what I hear, there was peace until a few natives killed a group of sailers that had to stay behind because the ships were loaded with gold and stuff. Most died from diseases... doesn't make it right but well, history in general is rather brutal and nightmarish. Thank God we live in the times we do, because life was pure hell back then.

 

[Lees]

Was it moral when one tribe took the land of another tribe?

Morality plays no role. That is nothing but mans term to describe his so called 'goodness'. Which is a joke.

God is Holy Righteous and Good. Whatever he does is Holy, Righteous, and Good. If He destroys millions by the flood of Noah, He is Holy, Righteous, and Good. If He saves millions by Christ's death, He is Holy Righteous and Good. When He casts millions into the Lake of Fire He is Holy, Righteous and Good.

Does man agree and call that 'moral'? God doesn't care. Because He doesn't care for the pseudo goodness of man...morality.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

I like Lees reasoning.

If I decide I can enter his home, kill him, take his wife and property and say simply "morality plays no role", "this is war" and what pseudo goodness would ever hold me back from doing such things? God doesn't care. After all, He destroyed millions in the flood. This is all the justification I need to do whatever I want.

Gotta love that Pauline - murderer - mentality. Let that light shine.

 

[Lees]

I like Lees reasoning.

If I decide I can enter his home, kill him, take his wife and property and say simply "morality plays no role", "this is war" and what pseudo goodness would ever hold me back from doing such things? God doesn't care. After all, He destroyed millions in the flood. This is all the justification I need to do whatever I want.

Gotta love that Pauline - murderer - mentality. Let that light shine.

No you don't like it. It proabably stung your idea of being 'good'.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

No you don't like it. It proabably stung your idea of being 'good'.

Lees

Lol. No stinging here, mate. Besides, it's not 'my' idea. If you Paulinites could extract your head from his teachings and explore around your bible without Paul-glasses on, you'd see that the idea of righteousness is very much connected with motive and actions.

But I digress. Paul is there for a reason. He's there so people can say (and do) the kinds of things you said then imagine yourselves clothed with "righteousness by faith".

 

[Lees]

Lol. No stinging here, mate. Besides, it's not 'my' idea. If you Paulinites could extract your head from his teachings and explore around your bible without Paul-glasses on, you'd see that the idea of righteousness is very much connected with motive and actions.

But I digress. Paul is there for a reason. He's there so people can say (and do) the kinds of things you said then imagine yourselves clothed with "righteousness by faith".

Yes, you do digress. Yet you should pay attention.

As to the example of Israel, that I gave,coming into the promised land and defeating her enemies, see the book of (Joshua). Old Testament. Near the front of the Bible. 6th book. Not Paul.

As to the example of the flood of Noah, that I gave, that killed all but Noah and his family, see the book of (Genesis 6-8) Also Old Testament. First book of the Bible. Not Paul

As to Christ's substitutionary death, it is found foretold throughout the Old Testament. It is played out in the Gospels, which are the first 4 books of the New Testament. It is here that hell is talked about quite a bit. And in the book of (Revelation), last book of the Bible, you find the final act and judgement of God and Christ where the unbelieving are cast into the Lake of Fire. Not Paul.

As to your pet peeve of the Christian being clothed in the righteousness of Christ and not their own, also called imputed righteousness, that too is found throughout the Bible. Paul certainly expands on this salvation but it didn't originate with him.

Imputed righteousness is an insult to your morality and goodness...isn't it?

Lees

 

[Fritz Kobus]

This is an extremely complex topic and one would have to look at each tribe or band of Indians and who is relating with them. Some were very friendly with the Indians, others took advantage of them. Perhaps the worst was when the United States made a treaty with them, then proceeded to break it (this happened multiple times). Not saying Europeans were justified in taking the continent from the Indians, but many of them lived very pagan lifestyles and so it may be that this was allowed to happen because of that. Not judging but their lifestyle surely was not pleasing to God, though he does love them. Worst was the Cherokee Nation who had set up a society much like the white man had with money, schools, businesses, etc, and they were relentlessly run out to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears which was somewhat of a death march. Or the Sand Creek massacre in Colorado where the soldiers lured the warriors out to a hunt then went in and massacred the women and children. There was plenty of evil distributed by both white men and Indians, Spaniards too. The French were generally very much the Indians' friends and the English were not. It didn't help that many of the tribes had no concept of individual land ownership. One major failing of the Indians was that they did not unify to fend off the Europeans, but often warred among themselves.

 

[Lees]

This is an extremely complex topic and one would have to look at each tribe or band of Indians and who is relating with them. Some were very friendly with the Indians, others took advantage of them. Perhaps the worst was when the United States made a treaty with them, then proceeded to break it (this happened multiple times). Not saying Europeans were justified in taking the continent from the Indians, but many of them lived very pagan lifestyles and so it may be that this was allowed to happen because of that. Not judging but their lifestyle surely was not pleasing to God, though he does love them. Worst was the Cherokee Nation who had set up a society much like the white man had with money, schools, businesses, etc, and they were relentlessly run out to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears which was somewhat of a death march. Or the Sand Creek massacre in Colorado where the soldiers lured the warriors out to a hunt then went in and massacred the women and children. There was plenty of evil distributed by both white men and Indians, Spaniards too. The French were generally very much the Indians' friends and the English were not. It didn't help that many of the tribes had no concept of individual land ownership. One major failing of the Indians was that they did not unify to fend off the Europeans, but often warred among themselves.

I don't believe the topic is as 'complex' as many make it out to be. God took a believing people, the European Christians, and made a home for them in a land inhabiterd by heathen, who served other gods, who they must defeat in war.

In other words, God removed the heathen Indians and established a Christian nation, America. This nation would be a refuge for both Christians and Jews. His people.

God established the political environment that would protect His people. Thus allowing the nation to grow and accomplish His design.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

Yes, you do digress. Yet you should pay attention.

As to the example of Israel, that I gave,coming into the promised land and defeating her enemies, see the book of (Joshua). Old Testament. Near the front of the Bible. 6th book. Not Paul.

I've always found it strange that God would pen "Do not kill/murder" as a commandment, then command killing from men. I admit I'm not all that familiar with the story and it's overall context though. However, it does seem to easily fit into your pro-war/killing mentality. Perhaps Peter could have argued the same thing when he took off a soldier's ear and Christ admonished him to put it away for "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword"?

As to the example of the flood of Noah, that I gave, that killed all but Noah and his family, see the book of (Genesis 6-8) Also Old Testament. First book of the Bible. Not Paul

What the story of Genesis mentions but does not go into great detail here is the Nephilim. One would need to go to extra-cannon literature such as the Nazarine acts of the apostles/ Recognitions of Clement to get a more detailed description of what God is destroying and why. Those reasons are certainly not as trivial as one might hope to believe they are if they are using the destruction of life on earth as some sort of example that gives them excuse to do the same.

As to Christ's substitutionary death, it is found foretold throughout the Old Testament. It is played out in the Gospels, which are the first 4 books of the New Testament. It is here that hell is talked about quite a bit. And in the book of (Revelation), last book of the Bible, you find the final act and judgement of God and Christ where the unbelieving are cast into the Lake of Fire. Not Paul.

The animal sacrifices you are likely referring to are Jewish additions to the text. Jeremiah says it plainly in Jeremiah 7:22. If that's not enough, try reading the first chapter of Isaiah without those Paul glasses. God disapproves of the animal sacrifices and even claims that he will not hear the prayers of those who partake in them!

And if that's not enough, "Go and learn what this means, ' I desire Mercy not Sacrifice '. - Christ's own words. Why say such a thing if He knows that his own sacrificial death is going to save the world?

As to your pet peeve of the Christian being clothed in the righteousness of Christ and not their own, also called imputed righteousness, that too is found throughout the Bible. Paul certainly expands on this salvation but it didn't originate with him.

Imputed righteousness is an insult to your morality and goodness...isn't it?

Lees

Imputed righteousness is not found "throughout the bible". It's in fact rejected in many places. You can find such rejections in the books of Exodus, Proverbs and the epistles of John, just for starters. You can also find it in the words of Christ directed to specific Jews, as well as the general public. Do I really need to list them? I'll just list one here for you:

Proverbs 17:15
He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.

 

[NathanH83]

Wow. Lots of responses on this one

 

[Fritz Kobus]

I don't believe the topic is as 'complex' as many make it out to be. God took a believing people, the European Christians, and made a home for them in a land inhabiterd by heathen, who served other gods, who they must defeat in war.

In other words, God removed the heathen Indians and established a Christian nation, America. This nation would be a refuge for both Christians and Jews. His people.

God established the political environment that would protect His people. Thus allowing the nation to grow and accomplish His design.

Lees

I tend to want to believe your summary and have also reasoned so, but we really can't say as it is not like in the Oid Testament where God commanded his people to wipe out another people.

 

[Lees]

I've always found it strange that God would pen "Do not kill/murder" as a commandment, then command killing from men. I admit I'm not all that familiar with the story and it's overall context though. However, it does seem to easily fit into your pro-war/killing mentality. Perhaps Peter could have argued the same thing when he took off a soldier's ear and Christ admonished him to put it away for "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword"?


What the story of Genesis mentions but does not go into great detail here is the Nephilim. One would need to go to extra-cannon literature such as the Nazarine acts of the apostles/ Recognitions of Clement to get a more detailed description of what God is destroying and why. Those reasons are certainly not as trivial as one might hope to believe they are if they are using the destruction of life on earth as some sort of example that gives them excuse to do the same.


The animal sacrifices you are likely referring to are Jewish additions to the text. Jeremiah says it plainly in Jeremiah 7:22. If that's not enough, try reading the first chapter of Isaiah without those Paul glasses. God disapproves of the animal sacrifices and even claims that he will not hear the prayers of those who partake in them!

And if that's not enough, "Go and learn what this means, ' I desire Mercy not Sacrifice '. - Christ's own words. Why say such a thing if He knows that his own sacrificial death is going to save the world?


Imputed righteousness is not found "throughout the bible". It's in fact rejected in many places. You can find such rejections in the books of Exodus, Proverbs and the epistles of John, just for starters. You can also find it in the words of Christ directed to specific Jews, as well as the general public. Do I really need to list them? I'll just list one here for you:

Proverbs 17:15
He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.

Of course you have found it strange. Yet there is a difference between murder and kill. God never murders. He gives life and takes life. And He takes it any way He pleases. Just like He will take yours one day.

No. One doesn't need to go into any so called 'extra canon literature'. Only the Bible is the Word of God. But...feel free to read whatever you like.

Everything in the Bible is 'Jewish'. The whole Old Testament and most of the New Testament is 'Jewish'. Jesus Christ is 'Jewish'. Silly statement you make. The making of the Bible is 'Jewish additions'. As to (Jer. 7:22), the sacrifices were not yet given as law to Israel when God brought them out of Egypt. Simple obedience was. (Jer. 7:23)

As to (Matt. 9:13) where Christ said 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice', it does not negate the requirement of the Old Testament sacrifces. It simply means the animal sacrifices are not the end of what God is after. They simply are steps to the end. David, an Old Testament saint by the way, said it best after his sin of murder and adultry. (Ps. 51:16-19) The sacrifices were not an end. They were steps to lead to the end. Which was a broken and contrite heart before God. Once that is obtained, then the sacrifices have meaning. (Ps. 51:19)

Christ's quote of (Hosea 6:6) in (Matt. 9:13) says the same. Israel continued with the outward Levitical sacrifices yet no longer had a heart after God. Their continuance of these sacrifices were empty before God. That which the animal sacrifices were intended to create in Israel, a heart after God, didn't.

Christ says the same thing to Israel because just as the animal sacrifices have no meaning to Israel, because they have no heart after God, neither does Christ's sacrifice. (Matt. 9:13)

(Pro. 17:15) doesn't speak against imputed righteousness. Where do you get that idea?

Imputed righteousness really is an insult to your morality and goodness...isn't it?

Lees

 

[Lees]

I tend to want to believe your summary and have also reasoned so, but we really can't say as it is not like in the Oid Testament where God commanded his people to wipe out another people.

No problem.

Myself, I can and do say with complete confidence.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

Everything in the Bible is 'Jewish'. The whole Old Testament and most of the New Testament is 'Jewish'. Jesus Christ is 'Jewish'. Silly statement you make. The making of the Bible is 'Jewish additions'. As to (Jer. 7:22), the sacrifices were not yet given as law to Israel when God brought them out of Egypt. Simple obedience was. (Jer. 7:23)

Nice try. At the time of Jeremiah's writing, they were supposedly 'given'. Just read one verse before:

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh."

In the context of the whole chapter of Jeremiah 7, God's disapproval of the people at that time, this passage is clear. Your sacrifices don't mean squat to Me. And further:

"For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:"

They don't mean squat to God because He never commanded them.

As to (Matt. 9:13) where Christ said 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice', it does not negate the requirement of the Old Testament sacrifces. It simply means the animal sacrifices are not the end of what God is after. They simply are steps to the end. David, an Old Testament saint by the way, said it best after his sin of murder and adultry. (Ps. 51:16-19) The sacrifices were not an end. They were steps to lead to the end. Which was a broken and contrite heart before God. Once that is obtained, then the sacrifices have meaning. (Ps. 51:19)

I noticed you missed reading Isaiah chapter 1. Anyway, let's have a look at Psalms 51. Seems like you may have a point here! Wup. Back up a minute to 51:14 -

"Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness."

Please explain to me how David can ask for deliverance from "bloodguiltiness" (the spilling of blood) if the meaning of verse 19 implies it.

Now, I've mentioned Jeremiah, Isaiah and addressed this passage. Let's look at another story. The Exodus, as illustrated in the book of Numbers 11.

Again, God disapproves of the people lusting after flesh to eat. He is exceedingly angry with them, but gives it anyway and then sends them a plague because of it.

But, that again is probably not enough for you. Here's more:

Isaiah 66:33:

"He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations."

Does God command abominations? Or am I going to hear another pitiful attempt at apologetics for killers?

Christ's quote of (Hosea 6:6) in (Matt. 9:13) says the same. Israel continued with the outward Levitical sacrifices yet no longer had a heart after God. Their continuance of these sacrifices were empty before God. That which the animal sacrifices were intended to create in Israel, a heart after God, didn't.

Christ says the same thing to Israel because just as the animal sacrifices have no meaning to Israel, because they have no heart after God, neither does Christ's sacrifice. (Matt. 9:13)

What you are really saying here is that Christ's plain words need more context. "I desire Mercy, not Sacrifice" is not good enough. It should read: "I desire Mercy, not Sacrifice...but not really...I actually want Mercy, a heart after God AND Sacrifice. Classic 'Christian' apologetics. More killing MORE....blood spilling is pleasing to God, yes.

Where does this thinking come from? Remember your greatest apostle started his career as a murderer. The spirit of Sheol speaks in former and latter times.

(Pro. 17:15) doesn't speak against imputed righteousness. Where do you get that idea?

Imputed righteousness really is an insult to your morality and goodness...isn't it?

Lees

Well, imputed righteousness (by the definition you were going by earlier) means righteousness without right action. Murder, theft, etc is justified because "this is war" "God doesn't care" and refraining is "pseudo righteousness" - all terms you used. So what's left? That would be "righteousness by faith".

Here's the interesting thing about that passage in Proverbs. Sheol/Paul completely contradicts it in Romans 4:5. God justifies the ungodly. Better get a memo to the writer of Proverbs 17:15.

 

[Lees]

Nice try. At the time of Jeremiah's writing, they were supposedly 'given'. Just read one verse before:

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh."

In the context of the whole chapter of Jeremiah 7, God's disapproval of the people at that time, this passage is clear. Your sacrifices don't mean squat to Me. And further:

"For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:"

They don't mean squat to God because He never commanded them.


I noticed you missed reading Isaiah chapter 1. Anyway, let's have a look at Psalms 51. Seems like you may have a point here! Wup. Back up a minute to 51:14 -

"Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness."

Please explain to me how David can ask for deliverance from "bloodguiltiness" (the spilling of blood) if the meaning of verse 19 implies it.

Now, I've mentioned Jeremiah, Isaiah and addressed this passage. Let's look at another story. The Exodus, as illustrated in the book of Numbers 11.

Again, God disapproves of the people lusting after flesh to eat. He is exceedingly angry with them, but gives it anyway and then sends them a plague because of it.

But, that again is probably not enough for you. Here's more:

Isaiah 66:33:

"He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations."

Does God command abominations? Or am I going to hear another pitiful attempt at apologetics for killers?




What you are really saying here is that Christ's plain words need more context. "I desire Mercy, not Sacrifice" is not good enough. It should read: "I desire Mercy, not Sacrifice...but not really...I actually want Mercy, a heart after God AND Sacrifice. Classic 'Christian' apologetics. More killing MORE....blood spilling is pleasing to God, yes.

Where does this thinking come from? Remember your greatest apostle started his career as a murderer. The spirit of Sheol speaks in former and latter times.


Well, imputed righteousness (by the definition you were going by earlier) means righteousness without right action. Murder, theft, etc is justified because "this is war" "God doesn't care" and refraining is "pseudo righteousness" - all terms you used. So what's left? That would be "righteousness by faith".

Here's the interesting thing about that passage in Proverbs. Sheol/Paul completely contradicts it in Romans 4:5. God justifies the ungodly. Better get a memo to the writer of Proverbs 17:15.

No. The whole point of Jeremiah concerning the sacrifices and offerings is that they mean nothing when ones heart is not right with God. And that is the condition of Judah at the time of Jeremiah's writing. God certainly commanded the sacrifices. Just read (Lev. 1-17).

David is clear in (Ps. 51:16-19). After one gets right with God, "Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar."

As to David's request to God to be delivered from 'bloodguiltiness', it was due to his sin of murder. He sought restoration back to God. (Ps. 51:11-12) He could have been killed for it. But he asked for forgiveness and received it. (2 Sam. 12:13)

As to (Isaiah 66:3) it is the same thing. Isaiah is addressing Israel who has rebelled against God just as Jeremiah was addressing Judah who had rebelled against God. (Is. 1:2-4) Thus their sacrifices were an abomination to Him.

No, what I am really saying is you don't know what you're talking about concerning the Bible. You don't like It or Christians. You especially don't like it that God has taken care of the Christians sins.

No, imputed righteousness does not mean 'righteousness without right action'. It means God has provided the 'right action'. God has provided the only righteousness that will work. His righteousness. The righteousness you reject.

Concerning (Pro. 17:15), just as with (Pro. 24:24) and many others, is dealing with man's actions toward man. Man is to judge rightly and not call the wicked good. Man is to not justify the wicked. To call wickedness good is an abomination to Him.

Concerning (Rom. 4:5), there is no contradiction. It is God who can and does justify the ungodly. That doesn't change mans actions towards man as stated in (Pro. 17:15)

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

No. The whole point of Jeremiah concerning the sacrifices and offerings is that they mean nothing when ones heart is not right with God. And that is the condition of Judah at the time of Jeremiah's writing. God certainly commanded the sacrifices. Just read (Lev. 1-17).

So first your explanation was that Jeremiah was referring to a time before the animal sacrificial system was supposedly commanded, and now it's a big generalization about Jeremiah's "whole point". Gotcha.

Btw, for the discerning reader, Jesus quotes a passage from this chapter of Jeremiah, and he does so in the Temple as he drives out those selling animals for sacrifice.

David is clear in (Ps. 51:16-19). After one gets right with God, "Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar."

As to David's request to God to be delivered from 'bloodguiltiness', it was due to his sin of murder. He sought restoration back to God. (Ps. 51:11-12) He could have been killed for it. But he asked for forgiveness and received it. (2 Sam. 12:13)

As to (Isaiah 66:3) it is the same thing. Isaiah is addressing Israel who has rebelled against God just as Jeremiah was addressing Judah who had rebelled against God. (Is. 1:2-4) Thus their sacrifices were an abomination to Him.

I know you have to believe this stuff because otherwise you have no salvation. The wording is clear to me, but that's only because I took off my Paul-glasses a long time ago. To you, it must be interpreted through Sheol/Paul's teaching, however reaching that may be when reading the passages in their context.

As an aside, it seems important to you for other reasons. Perhaps you are guilty of murder (of man). That's just a suggestion (not an accusation) based on your attitude (ie: "this is war", imputed righteousness is the only righteousness etc) justifying whatever attrocities happened during the colonization of America seems like it's nothing to you. I mean, at least the government gave the Indians some reservations. Perhaps they were being too generous and because "this is war" and imputed righteousness is the only righteousness, the colonists should have slaughtered them all?

No, what I am really saying is you don't know what you're talking about concerning the Bible. You don't like It or Christians. You especially don't like it that God has taken care of the Christians sins.

By just believing in blood sacrifice? It's not a matter of like or dislike, I just don't believe it. What I don't like, is the wholesale denial of Christ's teachings that it is used to replace. Repent? What for? Forgive your brother? What for? Just sin away, lad, hold that "might makes right" attitude be it for oneself or one's country, nod in grim satisfaction at the slaughter of other people and other nations...but it'll be all good in the end because you believe in Christ's atonement. Just go and slap Christ in the face when he tells you to repent or follow the commandments! You have something much better! His death!

No, imputed righteousness does not mean 'righteousness without right action'. It means God has provided the 'right action'. God has provided the only righteousness that will work. His righteousness. The righteousness you reject.

Concerning (Pro. 17:15), just as with (Pro. 24:24) and many others, is dealing with man's actions toward man. Man is to judge rightly and not call the wicked good. Man is to not justify the wicked. To call wickedness good is an abomination to Him.

Concerning (Rom. 4:5), there is no contradiction. It is God who can and does justify the ungodly. That doesn't change mans actions towards man as stated in (Pro. 17:15)

Lees

Oh the mental gymnastics a Paulinite must go through. I remember it well without fondness.