he Church's big LIFE authority, for the time in that it did not point out any faults in the Bible's paradigm. It is interesting that Jose de Acosta was a Jesuit. For his explanation of the "Cannibals" reflects greatly the Jesuit movement of excellent education, not excluding the sciences, as well as their interpretation and direction of intention policies toward religion. Although many criticized them for this, as in the Provincial Letters by Blaise Pascal, these moves where necessary to reconcile the science they taught with the religion they preached. Pascal accuses the Jesuits of making things too easy for their followers, and in many way Pascal is right—interpretation and direction of intension can be abused. But, the spirit of what the Jesuits where trying to do makes it possible for people to live life according to Christian morals and ethics, laid out by the Bible, from a contemporary perspective of the world. But, back to the Church's problems with the New World, the "Cannibals" already had their own paradigms of government and morals that often seemed better then Christian ones. Montainge writes heavily on the "Cannibals'" paradigms, and how the "Cannibals" themselves criticize the European paradigms. The "Cannibals" found it unusual and contrary to their paradigm, that strong European men would follow a child king, because of hereditary right. The "Cannibals" did not realize that it was not just hereditary, but divine right as well, which gave the Church power over the King. Yet, the "Cannibal" strongest warrior paradigm was dangerous to the Church's power, for it had reason on its side. And why should the Europeans rule over and convert the "Cannibals," if they are in way better ruled and more pious. Many of the Church's arguments center around and Aristotelean states of nature argument. Sepulveda, argues that the perfect and powerful (Spaniards) should rule over the imperfect and weak (Cannibals), they shoul...
