Was Columbus a True Christian??

[rhett o rick]

When Columbus first landed on Hispaniola in 1492, the Taino "Indians" who lived there had an apparently idyllic life.

When Columbus and his crew arrived on their second visit to Hispaniola, however, they took captive about two thousand local villagers who had come out to greet them and took them back to Europe as slaves. Columbus proceeded to sell the Taino into slavery and the young ladies and girls into sex slavery.

Columbus wrote to the Spanish monarchs in 1493: "It is possible, with the name of the Holy Trinity, to sell all the slaves which it is possible to sell…Here there are so many of these slaves, and also brazilwood, that although they are living things they are as good as gold…"

Prior to Columbus' arrival, some scholars place the population of Haiti/Hispaniola at around 1.5 to 3 million people. By 1496, it was down to 1.1 million, according to a census done by Bartholomew Columbus. By 1516, the indigenous population was 12,000, and according to Las Casas (who were there) by 1542 fewer than 200 natives were alive. By 1555, every single one was dead.

Columbus was a Christian and did the bidding of the Christian rulers of Spain.

How can a Christian today not condemn what Columbus did in the name of Jesus?

I took much of the above from a post by Thom Hartmann which can be found at

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/08/4398

[clydefrand]

1. What size ship could he have had to take that many people back

to Spain??? He must have a big fleet of ships on that voyage.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. He sailed on caravels. Tiny ships.

He took back about 20 slaves on his first voyage. Killed many more though.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. No, he was a Scotsman.

[renie408]

4. I thought he was Italian. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

5. LOL

but was he a true one?

[northernsoul]

8. A true Scotsman, that is.

A true Scotsman who never, ever put sugar on his porridge.

[nomorenomore08]

6. There's really no such thing as a "true Christian," or a "true *fill-in-the-blank-religion*."

Whoever calls him/herself a Christian (or whatever), by definition is one. Of course, I'm a guy who doesn't believe in any religion, and so it's all totally subjective and relative to me.

As far as Columbus, most people of his time probably considered him a good Christian for "taming the savage hordes," i.e. conquering and enslaving the natives. When you think about it, the right-wingers today who either ignore or cheer on the deaths of thousands of Iraqis because they think it serves the cause of "freedom," aren't fundamentally different from the distorted, propagandistic view of imperialism that was common in Renaissance Europe. The more things change...

[northernsoul]

10. Shhhh....

There's a secret rule that allows moderate and liberal Christians to pretend that some of their co-religionists don't actually exist: the only "true" Christians are the ones that aren't embarrassing they don't find embarrassing.

See also: the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

[nomorenomore08]

12. But at the same time, that doesn't make the liberals/moderates "responsible" for right-wing

fundamentalism, any more than your average Muslim is responsible for the existence of Al-Queda. But on the other hand, the "no true Scotsman" thing certainly applies, since the people who allegedly aren't "true Christians" think precisely that they are, and that furthermore, the more reasonable folks who beg to differ with them aren't "true Christians" themselves.

[Nihil]

17. Glad that you're taking the blame for the actions of George Bush!

Damn sporting of you to admit that he is not embarrassing to Americans
and that all Americans are equal to that particular example of one ...

:eyes:

[northernsoul]

19. I fully admit that George Bush and I share the same nationality

I find him worse than embarrassing, but it would be foolish for me to assert that he somehow is not actually an American.

[LanternWaste]

18. There's also a secret rule...

There's also a secret rule that allows a person to be defined as a Christian simply because they state they are one. I hope that gets applied to being a Mathematician too-- I've always wanted to be one...

[northernsoul]

20. What objective standard do you purpose that we use

to determine the extent and authenticity of a person's asserted Christian faith?

[LanternWaste]

21. I don't think that there are any objective tests

I don't think that there are any objective tests which can gauge something as diaphanous and as personal as faith, much like there's little to objectively test a person's statement of "I love X".

I imagine the best we can do is observe and infer, and off of that, either believe the statement or not.

[Solon]

22. But again, the problem is by what standard do you judge someone a true Christian...

from observation? Given how contradictory the Bible is on what is moral and what's not, apparently, being a Christian apparently has no effect on outward behavior of any particular individual, whether positive or negative.

[LanternWaste]

24. As standards require an objective and quantifiable measure...

"Given how contradictory the Bible is on what is moral and what's not"

Depending on interpretation, translation, textual criticism, historical relativism, etc. maybe-- maybe not. That aside...




"by what standard do you judge someone a true Christian..."

As standards require an objective and quantifiable measure, and as conceptual ideas such as faith in the divine, love for another person, or even happiness in one's self cannot (as far as I'm aware of) be measured, I myself can see no set standard which could be applied, whether I'm applying that to the question of a person's faith in the divine, or simply that that person may mildly dislike his Uncle Fred.

But I'm the first to admit that I'm not very bright at all, and the first to admit that others may quite easily find measurable, objective standards that I myself cannot perceive.

[David Zephyr]

7. The first chapter of Howard Zinn's "People's History" sums up Columbus as the monster he was.

Monster.

[rhett o rick]

14. I have the book but haven't read it. nm

[David Zephyr]

15. Once you begin, you will not stop.

I've read the book three times since way back when.

It is simply genius how Zinn took history and turned it around to teach it as it should be.

You'll find a lot of heroes, men and women, in that book who never get their credit.

[rhett o rick]

16. I am sure. I have looked thru it. But I must say that I have to limit the reading I do that

will depress me. I recognize that it needs to be done but there is so much that it drags me down.

[LeftyMom]

9. The only True Christians are Jesus and Betty Bowers, and at least one of them is purely fictional.

[nomorenomore08]

11. Don't forget Landover Baptist, the guys who think Fred Phelps is too liberal.

:P

[Fumesucker]

13. I read a very interesting novel some time back that covers this subject..

http://www.amazon.com/Pastwatch-Christopher-Orson-Scott-Card/dp/0812508645/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223943444&sr=8-1

_Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus_ by Orson Scott Card

Card at one time was a powerful and humanistic writer, unfortunately he seems to have gone off the mystical/religious deep end in the last few years and returned to his Mormon roots, his writing has definitely suffered for it.

_Pastwatch_ however is still a very interesting story.

In the future, remnants of the human race, denizens of a ravaged Earth, seem to live in idyllic peace. Determined not to repeat the mistakes of prior generations, they share resources and work for the common good. Scientific advances result in the creation of the "Tempoview" machine, which enables researchers to study the past firsthand via an unobtrusive video device. Of course, the ability to view the past raises questions of whether the past can be changed, and inevitably, whether it should be.

The members of Pastwatch, while debating this notion, discover that their history (which appears to be ours) has already been tampered with, and that the focal point is the charismatic Christopher Columbus. This discovery, coupled with the dawning realization of their imminent demise, leads them to conclude that they too must intercede and change history. Knowing that they will surely wipe out their own existence, they send three team members back in history to influence events surrounding Columbus' exploration of the New World.

Once again, Card explores the fertile ground of a "first contact" story, but this time it's not humans meeting aliens, it's humans meeting humans. To Columbus, the natives he encounters might as well be animals--it's up to the time travelers to make him see them as human beings, and hopefully avert the wholesale genocide (another prevalent theme in Card's works) that Columbus' journey triggers. Card tells the story with a strong sense of moral certitude, and, as usual, presents us with a cast of thoughtful, appealing heroes.

[spoony]

23. I condemn him.

What he initiated was evil and against the teachings of the founder of his and my religion and I lament what he did and that he thought it was a holy thing.

But now what? Does that make it any better? Does it settle anything? And isn't this basically the same as when RWers want moderate Muslims to constantly denounce terrorist attacks they (the moderates) had nothing to do with?

[knitter4democracy]

26. As do I.

I've been to his monument in the Dominican and then looked out at the city and seen the consequences of his sins. He coated his sins in the language of our faith, and for that, we are still paying. I condemn him and all those with him who worked to exterminate an entire culture and rape and pillage supposedly in the name of our God.

But I do have to agree: what does my condemnation really do? If the Catholic church condemned him, that might mean something, but is every single Christian on the planet going to condemn him and then do . . . what exactly?

[Deep13]

25. Yes.

Sorry but the canonical Gospels, Catholic doctrine of the time and of course the Old Testament all specifically authorize slavery. Further, the writings of Paul state the duty of Christians to submit to state authority (such as the Queen of Spain) which rules by divine right. The OT explicitly authorizes the extermination of religious out-groups.

So yes, Columbus was in compliance with Christian norms. Now, whether or not he privately believed in Jesus is not known to me.