Doctrine of Discovery? How many did the USA kill under this law?

[MattB]

Doctrine of Discovery?

Papal Bulls of the 15th century gave Christian explorers the right to
claim lands they "discovered" and lay claim to those lands for their
Christian Monarchs. Any land that was not inhabited by Christians was
available to be "discovered", claimed, and exploited. If the "pagan"
inhabitants could be converted, they might be spared. If not, they
could be enslaved or killed.

The Discovery Doctrine is a concept of public international law
expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions,
intially in Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823. The doctrine was Chief
Justice John Marshall's explanation of the way in which colonial
powers laid claim to newly discovered lands during the Age of
Discovery. Under it, title to newly discovered lands lay with the
government whose subjects discovered new territory. The doctrine has
been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring
aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial
governments.

http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/

[servant]

Very good Matt, you rightly show that the american colonies used the idea
in taking indian lands.

They were protestant of course, aswas the supreme court justice mentioned
below. who made it part of u.s. law to steal indian lands and force them
into the west..

President jackson did exactly that, the indians of the u.s. south were
forced to the west, thousands died on the forced march known as "the trail
of tears". .

[MattB]

On 09 Oct 2017 19:39:40 GMT, servant wrote:

>
>
>
>Very good Matt, you rightly show that the american colonies used the idea
>in taking indian lands.
>
>They were protestant of course, aswas the supreme court justice mentioned
>below. who made it part of u.s. law to steal indian lands and force them
>into the west..

They were both but the idea came from the RCC. "Papal Bulls of the
15th century" It is just a law that fit with the greed of both the
protestants and the Catholics.

[Rod]

The law of nature; the most mentally and physically fit
of humanity rule, lie and steal from those beneath them.

The white men were the most advanced for of human on this
side of the world. They invented many reasons to do as they
pleased, and did so.

[Robert]

On 09 Oct 2017 19:39:40 GMT, servant wrote:

>
>
>

>Very good Matt, you rightly show that the american colonies used the idea
>in taking indian lands.
>

Wrong! You should have read the article.
Quote

The Discovery Doctrine is a concept of public international law
expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions,

initially in Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823.
End Quote.

It was the USA that used to Papal international law, the colonists did
not do such a thing, initially.

Look at the Spaniards and the French who first started all this crap,
first in Canada and the use, plus points south.

>They were protestant of course, aswas the supreme court justice mentioned
>below. who made it part of u.s. law to steal indian lands and force them
>into the west..
>

They were RC both in the midwest and the far west coast and we still
have their rotten missions here, with the Indian encampments around
them, sick, all the way down into Mexico and SA.

>President jackson did exactly that, the indians of the u.s. south were
>forced to the west, thousands died on the forced march known as "the trail
>of tears". .
>

In 1442, the head of the Catholic Christian church, Pope Eugenius IV
gave the Portuguese the right to explore Africa. This right was
‘exclusive’, which meant that no other countries were allowed to
explore and exploit Africa. The Portuguese were exploring the
coastline of Africa, but it was costing them money. They wanted to
protect their new discoveries, especially from the Spanish, who were
also starting to explore Africa. At this time, leaders of the Catholic
Church in Europe were opposed to the Islamic religion, practiced by
Muslims. Southern Spain was occupied by Muslims, and the Catholic
Church felt threatened by this. Pope Nicholas V in 1452, as part of
the fight against Islam, gave the Portuguese king the right to enslave
people who were not Christian. This was used by the Portuguese to
enslave Africans. In 1454, the Pope then gave the Portuguese control
over trading with Africa. Some European traders ignored this. Spanish
merchants were trading with Africa for gold, ivory and a type of
pepper, and English merchants were keen to get involved.
In 1493 Pope Alexander VI divided the world between Spain and
Portugal. A line was drawn on the map down through the Atlantic Ocean.
Portugal was allowed to explore and trade on one side, in the ‘old’
world and Spain on the other, in the ‘new’ world. This was designed to
stop the two European countries from competing over parts of the world
that they wanted to explore and trade with. Spain had the Americas,
where Africans were needed to supply the labour. The Spanish could not
go to Africa to buy enslaved Africans. The agreement stated that only
Portugal was allowed to trade with Africa. Spanish landowners in the
Americas had to buy from Portugese or other slave traders. The first
slaves were intended for the goldmines on the Spanish-owned Caribbean
island of Hispaniola (which is now divided into the countries of Haiti
and the Dominican Republic).

http://discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/routes/places-involved/south-america/Spain-slavery-contract/

Sick Stuff to think on.

[servant]

>>Very good Matt, you rightly show that the american colonies used the idea
>>in taking indian lands.
>>
>>They were protestant of course, aswas the supreme court justice mentioned
>>below. who made it part of u.s. law to steal indian lands and force them
>>into the west..
>
>They were both but the idea came from the RCC. "Papal Bulls of the
>15th century" It is just a law that fit with the greed of both the
>protestants and the Catholics.

By that time the protestant movement was well under way. No protestant
would be caught dead using a rc bull as an excuse.

No matt, the idea was as common as dirt in those times in many places.

The protestants just did it based on their own ethnocentric ideas.>

[Rod]

On 10/9/2017 2:39 PM, servant wrote:
> Very good Matt, you rightly show that the american colonies used the idea
> in taking indian lands.

Not at first. It began with the spanish and the french
and escalated into a blood bath.

>
> They were protestant of course, aswas the supreme court justice mentioned
> below. who made it part of u.s. law to steal indian lands and force them
> into the west..

Bingo.

[MattB]

Well protestants also had their own inquisition just not as long. Then
again Protestantism started in 1517.

http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/dumdiversas.htm
Papal Bull Dum Diversas
18 June, 1452
Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452.
It authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims)
and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This
facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa.

The same pope wrote the bull Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455 to
the same Alfonso. As a follow-up to the Dum diversas, it extended to
the Catholic nations of Europe dominion over discovered lands during
the Age of Discovery. Along with sanctifying the seizure of
non-Christian lands, it encouraged the enslavement of native,
non-Christian peoples in Africa and the New World.

“We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and
noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted
among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King
Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all
Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ
wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities,
dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever
held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual
slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors
the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions,
possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and
profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso,
or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has
acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands,
harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said
King Alfonso and his successors”.

In 1493 Alexander VI issued the bull Inter Caetera stating one
Christian nation did not have the right to establish dominion over
lands previously dominated by another Christian nation, thus
establishing the Law of Nations.

Together, the Dum Diversas, the Romanus Pontifex and the Inter Caetera
came to serve as the basis and justification for the Doctrine of
Discovery, the global slave-trade of the 15th and 16th centuries, and
the Age of Imperialism.

Greed, arrogance and evil was not restricted to the RCC on this
matter. Though the RCC did start it.

[servant]

>>Very good Matt, you rightly show that the american colonies used the idea
>>in taking indian lands.
>>
>
>Wrong! You should have read the article.
>Quote
>The Discovery Doctrine is a concept of public international law
>expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions,
>initially in Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823.
>End Quote.
>
>It was the USA that used to Papal international law, the colonists did
>not do such a thing, initially.

The papal bull had no influence in first britishthen american behavior and
law.

They in their ethnocentric pride just did it; no law need be in place.

>
>Look at the Spaniards and the French who first started all this crap,
>first in Canada and the use, plus points south.

Until the brits drove them out using the same ethnocentric excuses of
"discovery" s they did for the indians in canada and the u.s. as well..

The entire british empire was based on claiming lands in the name of the
crown using "discovery". Any people there risked death if they should
resist..

This was established entirely during the time the brits were protestants.

[MattB]

Blacks also helped keep the native Americans down.

[servant]

>>>>Very good Matt, you rightly show that the american colonies used the idea
>>>>in taking indian lands.
>>>>
>>>>They were protestant of course, aswas the supreme court justice mentioned
>>>>below. who made it part of u.s. law to steal indian lands and force them
>>>>into the west..
>>>
>>>They were both but the idea came from the RCC. "Papal Bulls of the
>>>15th century" It is just a law that fit with the greed of both the
>>>protestants and the Catholics.
>>
>>By that time the protestant movement was well under way. No protestant
>>would be caught dead using a rc bull as an excuse.
>>
>>No matt, the idea was as common as dirt in those times in many places.
>>
>>The protestants just did it based on their own ethnocentric ideas.>
>
>
>Well protestants also had their own inquisition just not as long. Then

Matt, please dont change the subject; it doesn't help in your "discovery"
claim.


The protestants began "inquisition" as soon as they were in control of

[Robert]

On 09 Oct 2017 22:10:52 GMT, servant wrote:

>The papal bull had no influence in first britishthen american behavior and
>law.

That is a statement of pure ignorance or purposeful misstatement of
fact. That is why it was called international law, even tho it was
papal bull. It was de facto standard for many European countries and
thus was considered international behavior.

Yeah, it sucks that the US allowed its usage, they probably considered
it the least costly of two evils.

But then OTH, a few of you guys bragged about how much influence the
RCC had here early on, in which case you all deserve the full blame.

[Robert]

Ignorance speaking, control of nothing, except their local area, and
the sad thing was is that in their minds this was accepted practice
because that is what they grew up with in the RCC. It is the same
thing even today as many protestant churches live in legalism, the
theology of which came from the RCC and the GO.

The Gospel message is freedom in Christ Jesus. And if your stomach can
handle it, look up all the meanings for SOZO in Greek, That is what it
is all about.

[MattB]

On 09 Oct 2017 22:17:34 GMT, servant wrote:

>

[servant]

>>>>>>Very good Matt, you rightly show that the american colonies used the idea
>>>>>>in taking indian lands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They were protestant of course, aswas the supreme court justice mentioned
>>>>>>below. who made it part of u.s. law to steal indian lands and force them
>>>>>>into the west..
>>>>>
>>>>>They were both but the idea came from the RCC. "Papal Bulls of the
>>>>>15th century" It is just a law that fit with the greed of both the
>>>>>protestants and the Catholics.
>>>>
>>>>By that time the protestant movement was well under way. No protestant
>>>>would be caught dead using a rc bull as an excuse.
>>>>
>>>>No matt, the idea was as common as dirt in those times in many places.
>>>>
>>>>The protestants just did it based on their own ethnocentric ideas.>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well protestants also had their own inquisition just not as long. Then
>>
>>Matt, please dont change the subject; it doesn't help in your "discovery"
>>claim.
>>
>>
>>The protestants began "inquisition" as soon as they were in control of
>
>Ignorance speaking, control of nothing, except their local area, and
>the sad thing was is that in their minds this was accepted practice
>because that is what they grew up with in the RCC.

Correction, it was the political mindset of government, disagree and pay
the piper. It was the time of the "divine right" of kings, to get out of
line was a religious offence.

The calvinists who killed people in mass. in the time of the colonies had
long seperated from the rcc. They considered themselves agents of divine
authority, disagree or act too diferently and it was an divine offence in
their theoarcracy .

>It is the same
>thing even today as many protestant churches live in legalism, the
>theology of which came from the RCC and the GO.
>

Smile, what more display of a "legalism" then we see here daily when very
modern religious inovations are brought under the spotlight?

Then all the pharisee like "legalism" kicks in.

>The Gospel message is freedom in Christ Jesus. And if your stomach can
>handle it, look up all the meanings for SOZO in Greek, That is what it
>is all about.

Oh dear, the greek dictionaries on the pc based package is it?

Or in other words, accept some "legal" line of what "freedom" means as I
define it or be on the outs religiously.

When some wantt to toss out a discussion stopper, leaglism will do the job,
no?

[Rod]

Read this. It gives you a perspective on NA slavery.

[Rod]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/01/native_american_slavery_historians_uncover_a_chilling_chapter_in_u_s_history.html

[Robert]

On 10 Oct 2017 00:20:10 GMT, servant wrote:

>>The Gospel message is freedom in Christ Jesus. And if your stomach can
>>handle it, look up all the meanings for SOZO in Greek, That is what it
>>is all about.
>
>Oh dear, the greek dictionaries on the pc based package is it?
>

I have many books and several software packages of all types.
It is no big deal.

>Or in other words, accept some "legal" line of what "freedom" means as I
>define it or be on the outs religiously.
>
>When some wantt to toss out a discussion stopper, leaglism will do the job,
>no?

I cannot believe you are so clueless. I suppose that happens when one
uses personal divination.

I won't weigh you down with knowledge, but I hope it sticks in your
mind nonetheless.

As to the rest of your post, I've already forgotten what it was, :(

[MattB]

This is sickening.

They don't teach this in school. Why???

[Rod]

They may not have known the full story at that time. It may also be
that they do not want us to know. Impossible to tell which.

[Rod]

The bible says that humanity is evil. That is true. To some extent
we all are. If we even protect ourselves it is seen as an act of
evil biblically. These days, unless you know a person well, you can't
take their word at face value.

The point is...europeans hate anyone that that isn't white. They may
befriend a person for a time but they can't be trusted far. It's just
like it is here in Kansas. If you are not all white they would just as
soon kill you. They see themselves as superior, and the may reason that
they don't teach true history in schools, the truth will work against them.

In 1983, when I was living in Ponca City, Oklahoma, I witnessed a
white cop kill a blackman crossing field in Blackwell. He shot him
in the back, and wasn't more than 50 feet from him. The entire town
and the police department of Blackwell covered it up. The murderer
knows he was seen, he just has no idea who was watching.

It is nearly the same way here in Kansas; same kind of people. It's
the way of life for europeans; conquer and subdue. It's always been
their way of life. Murder,theft and lies are a way of life for them.

Can they be defeated? What would be the point? To become as they are?

No thanks.

[MattB]

For the most part I've never had a problem with white people even in
school it was the Blacks that were the problem if you want to see a
racist. My coloring makes me look Italian but in school they call you
by your first name. That was all it took. Beat a few to the point on
unconsciousness and solved the problem and even became good friends
with many former enemies.

The answer I do not know. Wish I could get my hands on those Popes.
Might not help but would feel better.
>
> No thanks.

[Elanea]

Robert wrote:

> On 09 Oct 2017 22:10:52 GMT, servant wrote:
>
> > The papal bull had no influence in first britishthen american
> > behavior and law.
>
> That is a statement of pure ignorance or purposeful misstatement of
> fact. That is why it was called international law, even tho it was
> papal bull. It was de facto standard for many European countries and
> thus was considered international behavior.

Then you can provide the eviodence for your claims? KNown liars, even
accidental liars, are not usually taken at face value.

>
> Yeah, it sucks that the US allowed its usage, they probably considered
> it the least costly of two evils.

No, it is typical, for the era, xian conduct. I want, you are a
savage, I get. Not complicatyed. yet, there were some folks that
hgot along with the first nations & lived peacefully together.

> But then OTH, a few of you guys bragged about how much influence the
> RCC had here early on, in which case you all deserve the full blame.

Nope, but it is typical of you, based on your posting history, to claim
that. Why are you so afraid of them?

--
Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.
-Eric Hoffer, philosopher and author (25 Jul 1902-1983)

[duke]

Poor robert - still crying in his milk.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Rod]

It's horrible when you have to fight them to get respect that
could have been had by them taking time to get to know you better.

That is a demonstration of human ignorance and evil to treat one
with contempt for no reason.

> The answer I do not know. Wish I could get my hands on those Popes.
> Might not help but would feel better.

Trust what the scriptures say; Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving
iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the
guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon
the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.


Karma Matt, what you do comes back to you; kindness for kindness,
evil for evil.




>>
>> No thanks.

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 10:27:42 -0700, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Doctrine of Discovery?
>
>Papal Bulls of the 15th century gave Christian explorers the right to
>claim lands they "discovered" and lay claim to those lands for their
>Christian Monarchs. Any land that was not inhabited by Christians was
>available to be "discovered", claimed, and exploited. If the "pagan"
>inhabitants could be converted, they might be spared. If not, they
>could be enslaved or killed.

Nowadays it's usually called "sphere of influence".


--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 13:55:55 -0700, Robert <an...@alive.now> wrote:

>On 09 Oct 2017 19:39:40 GMT, servant wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Very good Matt, you rightly show that the american colonies used the idea
>>in taking indian lands.
>>
>
>Wrong! You should have read the article.
>Quote
>The Discovery Doctrine is a concept of public international law
>expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions,
>initially in Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823.
>End Quote.
>
>It was the USA that used to Papal international law, the colonists did
>not do such a thing, initially.
>
>Look at the Spaniards and the French who first started all this crap,
>first in Canada and the use, plus points south.

Don't forget the Dutch, good Calvinists all.

[Robert]

Seems like the influence of the RCC corrupted much of the ways of
Christianity in every sphere of influence, meaning all initial
reformed churches. That while they were able to get away from the
worst of it that they just grew "used" to so much corrupted stuff that
it was like second nature to many, that plus the effects of sin upon
man that gave them cause to yield to their carnal selves as a matter
of personal convenience.

That said, one can also say that it was not totally the fault of the
RCC, as the churches were beginning to be corrupted by 150 AD as Paul
prophesied or warned. I believe it was the intellectualizing of
Christianity (carnal) taking precedence over the walking in the
spirit.

[klem k]

Or, there's a sucker born every minute. PT Barnum?

[Rod]

On 10/10/2017 10:36 PM, MattB wrote:

With some of them, I agree. Fortunately not all of them
that I have met are like that, but each mans life experiences
differ.

My coloring makes me look Italian but in school they call you
> by your first name. That was all it took. Beat a few to the point on
> unconsciousness and solved the problem and even became good friends
> with many former enemies.

My father was white, and genetics favors the male lineage
so I did not have my mothers features. I am slightly olive
and pink, but it really makes no difference. It is what lives
on the inside that makes the person.

>
> The answer I do not know.

Then I'll give you a hand up; the answer has always been the
same for men since their lives began. Follow the path of peace,
and if the guy next to you stumbles, help him up or carry him
until he can walk, but never walk this path alone.

[MattB]

Very True. Except for the inner cities haven't had a problem in
years.

>
>
>
> My coloring makes me look Italian but in school they call you
>> by your first name. That was all it took. Beat a few to the point on
>> unconsciousness and solved the problem and even became good friends
>> with many former enemies.
>
> My father was white, and genetics favors the male lineage
> so I did not have my mothers features. I am slightly olive
> and pink, but it really makes no difference. It is what lives
> on the inside that makes the person.

Not to the racist.

>
>
>>
>> The answer I do not know.
>
> Then I'll give you a hand up; the answer has always been the
> same for men since their lives began. Follow the path of peace,
> and if the guy next to you stumbles, help him up or carry him
> until he can walk, but never walk this path alone.

What if the guy walking next to you starts hitting you with a axe
handle or shooting at you???

[Rod]

You have never known true peace, have you Matt?

[Mattb.]

My job was to protect people. Would you want to live in this world
without such people and what they do? Even the Pope hires such
people.

It would be nice if that wasn't necessary but in the real world it is
necessary.

[pyotr filipivich]

Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:40:47 +0200
typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

Don't forget the Swiss Calvinists - and other Protestant
Reformers, who got a lot of backing by convincing the local Prince or
King that by becoming a Protestant, he could then take the property of
those satanic Cathol'cs.


--
pyotr
After the war two Army Chaplains were mustering out. The one said to
the other "Chaplain, it has been a real pleasure serving God with you.
You in your way, and I in His."

[Rod]

Matt, you don't have to justify what you do or your stance,
I know the world is hideously evil. I know what happens to
people in this world, but our natures have to be turned
around 360 degrees to do the good first and the bad as a last
resort, when we are given that chance or choice..

[MattB]

Definitely I would like to see that. Even between Churches it is
unlikely to happen.

[DoD]

"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:13cttc9tn4s3v0q4e...@4ax.com...

LOL... good on both the post and the sig....

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:02:13 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>>Don't forget the Dutch, good Calvinists all.
>
> Don't forget the Swiss Calvinists - and other Protestant
>Reformers, who got a lot of backing by convincing the local Prince or
>King that by becoming a Protestant, he could then take the property of
>those satanic Cathol'cs.

The Swiss Calvinists weren't into imperialism and colonialism in the
same way that the Dutch were.

The Spanish and Portuguese started it, and Roman Pope Alexander VI
tried to ensure that they didfn't clash over it:

"In 1493, in the wake of Christopher Columbus’ epochal discoveries,
and at the request of Ferdinand and Isabella, Alexander issued a bull
granting Spain the exclusive right to explore the seas and claim all
New World lands lying west of a north-south line 100 leagues (about
320 miles) west of the Cape Verde Islands. Portugal was granted
similar rights of exploration east of the demarcation line. This papal
disposition, which was never subsequently recognized by any other
European power, was jointly amended by Spain and Portugal in the
Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-VI

Obviously it was ignored by the English, French and Dutch. But the
Swiss weren't involved, as far as I know.

[pyotr filipivich]

Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 04:56:36 +0200

typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

The Swiss didn't establish colonies "overseas" - but the Calvinist
did confiscate properties belonging to those who didn't accept their
reforms.
Ah - found the book, . _Rock and Sand_ Josiah Trenham, (New Rome
Press, 2015), and the passage is on pg 83. Okay, so it was
specifically about Zurich under Zwingli:
quote:
"The monasteries, 350 of them, were dissolved, and their lands
appropriated by the civil authority. Initially these lands were
dedicate to charitable causes, but eventually they were seized
for secular purposes.(136)

Footnote: (136) Here we see on of the innumerable case of Protestant
theft on a grand scale. The Protestant assumption appears to be that
believing wrongly invalidates property rights."

end quote
I noted in my copy "Public Policy in the US takes precedent over
personal preference - and has since 1983, IRS v Bob Jones University."

IMOSHO, people will use any excuse to legitimize their behavior,
regardless of how it might appear to others. We are a rational animal
- and quite able to rationalize anything.

tschus
pyotr

[duke]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:12:01 -0700, Robert <an...@alive.now> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:40:47 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 13:55:55 -0700, Robert <an...@alive.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On 09 Oct 2017 19:39:40 GMT, servant wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Very good Matt, you rightly show that the american colonies used the idea
>>>>in taking indian lands.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong! You should have read the article.
>>>Quote
>>>The Discovery Doctrine is a concept of public international law
>>>expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions,
>>>initially in Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823.
>>>End Quote.
>>>
>>>It was the USA that used to Papal international law, the colonists did
>>>not do such a thing, initially.
>>>
>>>Look at the Spaniards and the French who first started all this crap,
>>>first in Canada and the use, plus points south.
>>
>>Don't forget the Dutch, good Calvinists all.
>
>Seems like the influence of the RCC corrupted much of the ways of
>Christianity in every sphere of influence, meaning all initial
>reformed churches. That while they were able to get away from the
>worst of it that they just grew "used" to so much corrupted stuff that
>it was like second nature to many,

Actually, you and they turned away form the teachings of Jesus Christ in your
reform movement.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:39 -0700, pyotr filipivich

Much as Henry VIII did in England, but whatever people do in their own
countries, what we are talking about here is what they did in other
countries, whether they called them colonies, plantations,
protectorates or spheres of influence.

[louise]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 18:33:25 -0700, Robert wrote:

> On 10 Oct 2017 00:20:10 GMT, servant wrote:
>
>>>The Gospel message is freedom in Christ Jesus. And if your stomach can
>>>handle it, look up all the meanings for SOZO in Greek, That is what it
>>>is all about.
>>
>>Oh dear, the greek dictionaries on the pc based package is it?
>>
>
> I have many books and several software packages of all types.
> It is no big deal.

That does not mean you can understand them in context. & according to your
posting history, you don't.

>
>>Or in other words, accept some "legal" line of what "freedom" means as I
>>define it or be on the outs religiously.
>>
>>When some wantt to toss out a discussion stopper, leaglism will do the job,
>>no?
>
> I cannot believe you are so clueless. I suppose that happens when one
> uses personal divination.

Hard to believe you are so clueless, but there it is in front of gosh &
everybody. & you may be right, it is your version of god that does you in
& helps you remain ignorant of the subject, xian theology.

>
> I won't weigh you down with knowledge, but I hope it sticks in your
> mind nonetheless.

Correction, you can't weigh anyone down with what you don't have. Minor
example, When did the Jewish myth become monotheistic, & why.

>
> As to the rest of your post, I've already forgotten what it was, :(

Of course you have, You don't want to hear anythiing but go Robert go.
Not whoa Robert whoa.

[pyotr filipivich]

Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:49:00 +0200

True. But I'm sure that some precedent was established locally,
whereby unbelievers property rights were considered null and void.