Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hezekiah jones · 07-06-2002, 09:25 AM

The following letter appears in the current New Yorker, in response to a lengthy article on Catholicism by Thomas Keneally that ran a couple of weeks ago:

Quote:

Keneally refers to the early Catholic Church's "expansion into North America" in terms of Jesuits "martyred for the faith in their missions among Native American tribes." Yet the Church's history in the Americas began with the missionaries who accompanied Spain's conquistadores. The Dominican priest Bartolom� De Las Casas, a sixteenth-century witness, concluded that, in the New World, Indians were the real Christians and that Spaniards were the savages. In one incident, Hatuey, a Cuban chief about to be burned at the stake by priests, was implored to accept conversion so that he could enter Heaven. "No," he said. "I would only find more Christians there."

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]</p>

Anunnaki · 07-06-2002, 09:51 AM

What the chief said was right on the mark,but I`m bothered by this:

Quote:

The Dominican priest Bartolom� De Las Casas, a sixteenth-century witness, concluded that, in the New World, Indians were the real Christians and that Spaniards were the savages.

I hate this shit. What the priest (as well as millions of other people) is saying is that "Christian" is a synonym for "civilized" or "humane." The Indians never even heard of Christianity until the Spaniards got there so there was nothing "Christian" about them.

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Ruy Lopez · 07-07-2002, 06:41 AM

Anunnaki: If I were to interpret what De Las Casas referred to was the "Christian" trait of compassion or love of neighbor. These two ideas are not original to Christianity and were enunciated on record 500 years earlier. He probably meant the Cuban Chief had greater love for his fellowmen than the conquistadores.

Makes sense? Or did I misread your intention?

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: demon-sword ]</p>

Bree · 07-07-2002, 06:57 AM

I agree with demon-sword - I think the author meant that the natives had the "Christian" traits while the proclaimed Christians were the "real savages" - however, the wording is misleading and the analogy is old and used up, IMHO.

I hate it when people say "well, you may not proclaim yourself as Christian, but you are Christian simply because you act Christ-like." PUKE.

Anunnaki · 07-07-2002, 10:10 AM

You both said exactly what I said so I don`t know what the confusion is about.

I didn`t assume De Las Casas meant the Indians were actually Jesus believing Christians. He meant they were the most "Christian-like" because they (the Indians) were the better people.

It`s this idea that "Christian" has become synonomous for "better people" that bothers me.

Bree,
You should get some Tums or Mylanta for that stomach of yours. You seem to vomit quite a bit or is it only when you get too close to my posts?

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2002, 06:41 AM	#3
Ruy Lopez Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Manila Posts: 5,516	Anunnaki: If I were to interpret what De Las Casas referred to was the "Christian" trait of compassion or love of neighbor. These two ideas are not original to Christianity and were enunciated on record 500 years earlier. He probably meant the Cuban Chief had greater love for his fellowmen than the conquistadores. Makes sense? Or did I misread your intention? [ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: demon-sword ]</p>

07-07-2002, 06:57 AM	#4
Bree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Twin Cities, USA Posts: 3,197	I agree with demon-sword - I think the author meant that the natives had the "Christian" traits while the proclaimed Christians were the "real savages" - however, the wording is misleading and the analogy is old and used up, IMHO. I hate it when people say "well, you may not proclaim yourself as Christian, but you are Christian simply because you act Christ-like." PUKE.

07-07-2002, 10:10 AM	#5
Anunnaki Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: I`ve left and gone away Posts: 699	You both said exactly what I said so I don`t know what the confusion is about. I didn`t assume De Las Casas meant the Indians were actually Jesus believing Christians. He meant they were the most "Christian-like" because they (the Indians) were the better people. It`s this idea that "Christian" has become synonomous for "better people" that bothers me. Bree, You should get some Tums or Mylanta for that stomach of yours. You seem to vomit quite a bit or is it only when you get too close to my posts? [ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.