The Viking Leif Ericson was a Christian Evangelist

[DOC]

Yes, I was surprised to learn that Leif Ericson (the man who discovered North America about 500 years before Columbus) and all of his men were Christians. And he was an evangelist to the country of Greenland.

http://www.viking.no/e/people/leif/e-leiv.htm

[JoeEllison]

Even if that is true... so what? And, of course, he did not "discover" North America, since there were already people here.

[DOC]

Even if that is true... so what? And, of course, he did not "discover" North America, since there were already people here.

Well, I thought it was kind of interesting. I mean I knew the
Pilgrims were very religious and the settlers who founded Jamestown
planted a cross on their first landing
point -- but Leif Ericson, the Viking -- now that was a surprise.

[vexed]

Umm, what about this contradicting part:"His mother listened to his words and became a Christian. So devout in her belief was she, she asked Eric to have a church built for worship. Grudgingly, Eric fulfilled her request, but he himself never accepted the faith or visited the finished church."

I bolded the area of interest.

[JoeEllison]

Umm, what about this contradicting part:"His mother listened to his words and became a Christian. So devout in her belief was she, she asked Eric to have a church built for worship. Grudgingly, Eric fulfilled her request, but he himself never accepted the faith or visited the finished church."

I bolded the area of interest.
And, really, that doesn't matter either. :p

[JoeEllison]

Well, I thought it was kind of interesting. I mean I knew the
Pilgrims were very religious and the settlers who founded Jamestown
planted a cross on their first landing
point -- but Leif Ericson, the Viking -- now that was a surprise.Is that all you have to say? Because, frankly, it is one step away from some kid saying "I saw Justin Timberlake wearing Nikes... I WEAR NIKES!!! WOOHOOO!!!!"

[DOC]

Umm, what about this contradicting part:"His mother listened to his words and became a Christian. So devout in her belief was she, she asked Eric to have a church built for worship. Grudgingly, Eric fulfilled her request, but he himself never accepted the faith or visited the finished church."

I bolded the area of interest.

Well, Just for the record, Eric was Leif's father. I'm just
putting some history out there about the religious foundations of North America.

[JoeEllison]

Well, Just for the record, Eric was Leif\'s father. I'm just
putting some history out there about the religious foundations of North America.

Again, so what? Your post doesn't show any such "religious foundation"... the first people here weren't Christians, and if you are claiming otherwise then you're showing both religious AND racial bigotry.

[slingblade]

Well, Just for the record, Eric was Leif\'s father. I'm just
putting some history out there about the religious foundations of North America.


History. Okay.


CAN ONE OF THE MODS PLEASE MOVE THIS THREAD TO THE HISTORY SUBFORUM?

THANKS!

[qayak]

Yes, I was surprised to learn that Leif Ericson (the man who discovered North America about 500 years before Columbus) and all of his men were Christians. And he was an evangelist to the country of Greenland.

http://www.viking.no/e/people/leif/e-leiv.htm

This is wrong! Leif Ericson discovered America before he became a christian. He made his wealth on his famed voyage to Labrador and then returned home. He was at loggerheads with his father and there were few prospects for him in Greenland. He was still exiled from Iceland at the time. He sailed to Norway, probably in 997, his trip to America was 995-996.

I don't think he became a christian to spread its goodness. He became a christian in an attempt to usurp his father's leadership.

[DOC]

This is wrong! Leif Ericson discovered America before he became a christian. He made his wealth on his famed voyage to Labrador and then returned home. He was at loggerheads with his father and there were few prospects for him in Greenland. He was still exiled from Iceland at the time. He sailed to Norway, probably in 997, his trip to America was 995-996.

I don't think he became a christian to spread its goodness. He became a christian in an attempt to usurp his father's leadership.


Do you have a source for this.

[Cheesejoff]

Sounds similiar to the Mormon attempt to Americanise Jesus.

[wollery]

Minor point, but rather pertinent to DOC's stated reason for starting this thread.

Leif Ericson had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of the United States of America.

[DOC]

To Slingblade, If you don't like the forum than stay out, it's very simple. Maybe the fact that many of the first explorers from Europe were Christians tells us something. Even Columbus was heavy into the bible. I realize Columbus had his faults and did some bad things but we shouldn't ru away from history or ask that it be hidde somewhere.

As you ca see the 14th letter of the alphabet is ot workig o my keyboard. A-y advise out there. Also earlier whe I hit E-ter it would go to the -ext li-e & pri-t a letter p. Looks like I might be out for awhile. Ca- a virus do this.

[wollery]

To Slingblade, If you don't like the forum than stay out, it's very simple.She was simply pointing out that the topic of this thread is history, not religion (as you yourself stated), so it rightly belongs in the history subforum.

Maybe the fact that many of the first explorers from Europe were Christians tells us something.I think it tells us that almost everyone in Europe at the time was a christian.

Even Columbus was heavy into the bible. I realize Columbus had his faults and did some bad things but we shouldn't ru away from history or ask that it be hidde somewhere.Indeed, history should be taught exactly as it occurred, warts and all. Things like the Spanish inquisition, the many religious justifications for slavery and racism, the complete lack of corroborating accounts of Jesus' life.......

As you ca see the 14th letter of the alphabet is ot workig o my keyboard. A-y advise out there. Also earlier whe I hit E-ter it would go to the -ext li-e & pri-t a letter p. Looks like I might be out for awhile. Ca- a virus do this.Have you tried cleaning you keyboard?

[CFLarsen]

Maybe the fact that many of the first explorers from Europe were Christians tells us something.

What does it tell you?

[joobz]

Even if that is true... so what? And, of course, he did not "discover" North America, since there were already people here.
I've posted this theory on another thread, but I think it bears repeating...

This is DOC's MO. In his Jefferson and "Peter in Rome" thread, he posted a point that was minor and, even if true, didn't mean anything. All direct questions asking him what his point was for raising these issues were usually ignored or simply would accuse the questioner of personal attacks.

I am left to assume(since he refuses to say it) his point is to "prove" that christianity is great and wonderful and is the only thing that is worthwhile because
1.) Peter was in Rome
2.) Jefferson was devoutly religious
3.) Communism would have succeeded if it was christian
4.) only christianity can rescue someone from drugs
5.) Secular humanism is a religion
6.) ACLU hates christianity
7.) Leif Errickson is a christian

Unfortunately, all of these claims are "not even wrong".

However, this fact doesn't seem to matter to him. It is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for. Eventually, I expect him to post something along the lines of, "How can you continue to deny? Look at all of these points, christianity must be valid..." It is with the hope that at this point that all contrary arguments will sound like the ones coming from a petulant child.

I could be wrong, but we'll see. In any case, such strategy is only effective in debate theater. On this internet, which can be read at leisure, truth wins out.

[Ryokan]

I don't think he became a christian to spread its goodness. He became a christian in an attempt to usurp his father's leadership.

There was another very good reason for Leif to convert. To trade or do any sort of business in Norway in Norway by this time, you had to be a Christian. So people really had no choice, except becoming an outlaw on the still pagan Iceland.

It really doesn't paint Christianity in a good light. Norway was converted with the sword, or the threat of the sword, and the One True Religion was enforced heavily.

ETA: Just wanted to add, it doesn't matter what religion Leif was. He was an awesome person either way.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Sounds similiar to the Mormon attempt to Americanise Jesus.

Are you suggesting Jesus doesn't wear an American flag t-shirt and drive a Chevy pickup?

Cause if you are, I gotta say... you've got some nerve.

[Father Dagon]

Even if that is true... so what? And, of course, he did not "discover" North America, since there were already people here.Discovered North America for the benefit of Europe. Or do you correct your friends when they say "I discovered this nice little bookstore"? ;)

[Leif Roar]

It really doesn't paint Christianity in a good light. Norway was converted with the sword, or the threat of the sword, and the One True Religion was enforced heavily.

That's an oversimplification. While the introduction of Christianity as a state religion was done by force of arms, Christianity was already widespread among the Norwegian population -- particularly in the western parts and particularly among the thralls. Christianity had been imported with captured thralls and through tradesmen and was at least several decades old in Norway by the time of the battle of Stiklestad.

It's also worth remembering that the old norse religion wasn't a personal religion in the way modern (and to a lesser extent, contemporary) Christianity is. It was a communal religion, in that worship was a matter for the society and not the individual: it didn't matter if someone didn't believe in the norse gods as long as he joined the blots and took part in the religious rites with the rest of the community.

[grayman]

Are you suggesting Jesus doesn't wear an American flag t-shirt and drive a Chevy pickup?

Cause if you are, I gotta say... you've got some nerve.

You say Chevrolet:
kkrEbKQX3pg

Some say Christler:
YDrXBL6MKjU

But everyone knows he would drive a Ford pickup truck:
pe-er9FqhYA

[qayak]

Do you have a source for this.

West Viking: The Ancient Norse in Greenland and North America by Farley Mowat.

The Greenland's Story of the Icelandic Sagas

[Leif Roar]

West Viking: The Ancient Norse in Greenland and North America by Farley Mowat.

The Greenland's Story of the Icelandic Sagas

Actually, the Saga of the Greenlanders doesn't mention Leiv's trip to Norway at all, and according to the Saga of Erik Red[1], Leiv found Vinland after he'd been in Norway (Roughly translated from a Norwegian translation):

"Leiv and the others sailed away from the Hebrides and arrived in Norway in the fall. Leiv joined King Olav [the Holy]'s hird. The king valued him highly, for he thought he looked like an honourable man.

One day the King came and spoke with Leiv and said "Will you be going to Greenland this Summer?" - "Yes, I'm planning to do so," Leiv said, "if I have Your approval."

The King answers: "I believe that would be good. You will go in my service and offer Christianity there." Leiv said that it was the King's decision, but he did not think it would be easy to go in that errand to Greenland. The King said he knew nobody who was better suited for such a mission than Leiv. - "You have the luck for it," he said. "That would have to be," says Leiv "if Your luck will assist."

Then Leiv set to sea, but he stayed out a long time, and he found land that he had not known about before. There wheatefields grew wild, and there grew grape-vines. There were trees there of a kind that's called masur, and of all this they brought samples; some of the trees were so large that they were used for house timbers. Leiv found some people on a sea-raft and took them home with him. In this as in many other things he was magnamious and helpful, and he brought Christianity to [Greenland]. He was later known as Leiv the Lucky."

Now, it's very questionable how accurate this version is; it might very well have been 'massaged' to associate King Olav with the discovery. In general it is dangerous to read the Sagas as accurate portrayals of history.

[1] Eirik Raudes Saga (http://www.rosseland.com/calender.htm) (Sorry, don't have an English translation handy.)

[ClintonHammond]

IIRC Eric "The Red"s wife withheld sex from him until he'd build her that church... So the first X-tian church in North America was build so that a horny old pagan could get his end away....

Also didn't a lot of 'Vikings' convert to X-tinaity just so they could engage in trade with them? (It's been quite some time since I studied the period)

[Terry]

History. Okay.


CAN ONE OF THE MODS PLEASE MOVE THIS THREAD TO THE HISTORY SUBFORUM?

THANKS!

umm... if you wish to draw something to the attention of the mod team, could you please report the post, rather than SHOUTING in the thread?

[Big Les]

IIRC Eric "The Red"s wife withheld sex from him until he'd build her that church... So the first X-tian church in North America was build so that a horny old pagan could get his end away....

Also didn't a lot of 'Vikings' convert to X-tinaity just so they could engage in trade with them? (It's been quite some time since I studied the period)

That's what I was taught. It made economic and political sense to nominally convert to Christianity, even if you didn't actually change your religious/ritual activities very much. But once those Xtians have their foot in the door, it's downhill from there - even nominal Christianity on the part of influential types is likely to result in eventual conversion of the whole country.

From other replies, it seems Leif wasn't even "one of them" when he went Septic-side. Even if he had been, where's the evidence that he did any "evangelising"? This doesn't even qualify as pseudo-history in my book, DOC. Maybe pseudo-pseudo-history. Where are your ley lines, your sacred geometries? The Knights Templar? Come on, man!

[Miss Anthrope]

Is that all you have to say? Because, frankly, it is one step away from some kid saying "I saw Justin Timberlake wearing Nikes... I WEAR NIKES!!! WOOHOOO!!!!"


:eusa_clap:

[Leif Roar]

IIRC Eric "The Red"s wife withheld sex from him until he'd build her that church... So the first X-tian church in North America was build so that a horny old pagan could get his end away....

Actually, that church would have been built in Greenland.

[Ryokan]

Actually, that church would have been built in Greenland.

You could argue that Greenland is in North America.

[DOC]

I've posted this theory on another thread, but I think it bears repeating...

This is DOC's MO. In his Jefferson and "Peter in Rome" thread, he posted a point that was minor and, even if true, didn't mean anything. All direct questions asking him what his point was for raising these issues were usually ignored or simply would accuse the questioner of personal attacks.

I am left to assume(since he refuses to say it) his point is to "prove" that christianity is great and wonderful and is the only thing that is worthwhile because
1.) Peter was in Rome
2.) Jefferson was devoutly religious
3.) Communism would have succeeded if it was christian
4.) only christianity can rescue someone from drugs
5.) Secular humanism is a religion
6.) ACLU hates christianity
7.) Leif Errickson is a christian

Unfortunately, all of these claims are "not even wrong".

However, this fact doesn't seem to matter to him. It is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for. Eventually, I expect him to post something along the lines of, "How can you continue to deny? Look at all of these points, christianity must be valid..." It is with the hope that at this point that all contrary arguments will sound like the ones coming from a petulant child.

I could be wrong, but we'll see. In any case, such strategy is only effective in debate theater. On this internet, which can be read at leisure, truth wins out.

Sorry to interrupt my own forum here, but there are a group of people whose MO is attack the messenger because they don't like the message. The above being a perfect example. They'll even go to other forums to do it. The above individual posted a similar message to the one above in at least 2 other forums so I'll just repeat the response I gave in the other forum.

From the other forum:

"Thanks for the publicity, but I believe you are insulting the intelligence of people because you seem to imply that people aren't smart enough to read the forums themselves and make their own decisions. Your post might make me annoyed if I was giving oral speeches but in a medium like this, all my posts are out there. So I really do hope you will continue to do this, but please don't put false info out there. Peter is not in the top 100 of the most influential people of all time (according to the book "The 100 - The hundred Most Influential People in History"). Christ was # 3 and Paul was #6. I never said "only" Christianity can rescue someone from drugs and I never said Jefferson was "devoutly" religious although he did attend church regularly in a Congressional building while president. Once again I invite you to continue to do this but please be more accurate."

And please don't come into this forum anymore unless you are talking about Leif Ericson.

[CFLarsen]

It's a thread, not a forum.

And anyone are free to post here. You don't get to choose who posts here.

[joobz]

Sorry to interrupt my own forum here, but there are a group of people whose MO is attack the messenger because they don't like the message. The above being a perfect example. They'll even go to other forums to do it. The above individual posted a similar message to the one above in at least 2 other forums so I'll just repeat the response I gave in the other forum.

From the other forum:

"Thanks for the publicity, but I believe you are insulting the intelligence of people because you seem to imply that people aren't smart enough to read the forums themselves and make their own decisions. Your post might make me annoyed if I was giving oral speeches but in a medium like this, all my posts are out there. So I really do hope you will continue to do this, but please don't put false info out there. Peter is not in the top 100 of the most influential people of all time (according to the book "The 100 - The hundred Most Influential People in History"). Christ was # 3 and Paul was #6. I never said "only" Christianity can rescue someone from drugs and I never said Jefferson was "devoutly" religious although he did attend church regularly in a Congressional building while president. Once again I invite you to continue to do this but please be more accurate."

And please don't come into this forum anymore unless you are talking about Leif Ericson.
I'm not "attacking" you. I'm simply highlighting what your strategy of debate seems to be.

In every thread you have started, someone asks the all important question
"So what?"
You never answer this question. I'm presenting my hypothesis of what that answer is.

If I am wrong, feel free to provide what your actual view is. As it stands, it seems your only critique is the exact form of the minor, inconsequential points you make. I have no trouble correcting myself.

So allow me to rework my argument:

I am left to assume(since he refuses to say it) his point is to "prove" that christianity is great and wonderful and is the only thing that is worthwhile because
1.) Peter was in Rome
2.) Jefferson was a church going christian
3.) Communism would have succeeded if it was christian
4.) Athiesm can't rescue someone from drugs
5.) Secular humanism is a religion
6.) ACLU hates christianity
7.) Leif Errickson is a christian
8.) Christ and Paul are on some guys list of 100 most influential people.

Unfortunately, all of these claims are "not even wrong".

This fact doesn't seem to matter to DOC. It is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for.


Is this correct?

ETA: I have started a thread in Religion to address this topic...

[DOC]

Actually, the Saga of the Greenlanders doesn't mention Leiv's trip to Norway at all, and according to the Saga of Erik Red[1], Leiv found Vinland after he'd been in Norway (Roughly translated from a Norwegian translation):

"Leiv and the others sailed away from the Hebrides and arrived in Norway in the fall. Leiv joined King Olav [the Holy]'s hird. The king valued him highly, for he thought he looked like an honourable man.

One day the King came and spoke with Leiv and said "Will you be going to Greenland this Summer?" - "Yes, I'm planning to do so," Leiv said, "if I have Your approval."

The King answers: "I believe that would be good. You will go in my service and offer Christianity there." Leiv said that it was the King's decision, but he did not think it would be easy to go in that errand to Greenland. The King said he knew nobody who was better suited for such a mission than Leiv. - "You have the luck for it," he said. "That would have to be," says Leiv "if Your luck will assist."

Then Leiv set to sea, but he stayed out a long time, and he found land that he had not known about before. There wheatefields grew wild, and there grew grape-vines. There were trees there of a kind that's called masur, and of all this they brought samples; some of the trees were so large that they were used for house timbers. Leiv found some people on a sea-raft and took them home with him. In this as in many other things he was magnamious and helpful, and he brought Christianity to [Greenland]. He was later known as Leiv the Lucky."

Now, it's very questionable how accurate this version is; it might very well have been 'massaged' to associate King Olav with the discovery. In general it is dangerous to read the Sagas as accurate portrayals of history.

[1] Eirik Raudes Saga (http://www.rosseland.com/calender.htm) (Sorry, don't have an English translation handy.)


Thank you for the above info. This is information we could never in our wildest dreams be taught in secular public school (in America).

[DOC]

To Joobz:

I'm not going to let you sabotage this forum. If your not going to talk about Leif Ericson or his Christianty. I'm not going to respond.

I would appreciate it if the moderators would ask Joobz to stick to the topic of Lief Ericson and his Christianity.

[Tony]

Thank you for the above info. This is information we could never in our wildest dreams be taught in secular public school (in America).

You're such a crybaby. This "information" wouldn't be taught because it isn't reliable history. Leif Roar says as much:

Now, it's very questionable how accurate this version is; it might very well have been 'massaged' to associate King Olav with the discovery. In general it is dangerous to read the Sagas as accurate portrayals of history.

I guess you ignored that part because it told you something you didn't want to hear. Furthmore, I see no reason why that couldn't be taught in a literature class (like Beowolf) or a Norwegian language class. Why do you whine when schools refuse to teach myth as history?

[joobz]

To Joobz:

I'm not going to let you sabotage this forum. If your not going to talk about Leif Ericson or his Christianty. I'm not going to respond.

I would appreciate it if the moderators would ask Joobz to stick to the topic of Lief Ericson and his Christianity.
Please check the bottom of my last post. I agree that I do not wish to derail any conversation on the topic of leif ericson. I have started a thread to address this topic.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88044
I invite and welcome you to please provide your insights there. I truly am interested in hearing what you have to say.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
Thank you for the above info. This is information we could never in our wildest dreams be taught in secular public school (in America).



You're such a crybaby. This "information" wouldn't be taught because it isn't reliable history. Leif Roar says as much:

I have to disagree. It's no secret to many that the religiosity of the founders of America is strictly censored in American public school Education. Just read the forum "Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity" in the religious section. It should be on page 2 or 3 of that section.

How many people in the US do you think know that the viking Lief Ericson and his men were Christians. Maybe 1 in 5,000. I have to believe even if all the info Leif Roar stated was 100% verifiable there's no way any American public school student would learn anything about the parts dealing with Christianity.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC View Post

To Joobz:

I'm not going to let you sabotage this forum. If your not going to talk about Leif Ericson or his Christianty. I'm not going to respond.

I would appreciate it if the moderators would ask Joobz to stick to the topic of Lief Ericson and his Christianity.



Please check the bottom of my last post. I agree that I do not wish to derail any conversation on the topic of leif ericson. I have started a thread to address this topic.


If the stuff I'm talking about is not important why are you putting up such a fuss about it and why did the "Thomas Jefferson's admiration of Christianity" thread in the religion section get over 16,000 hits.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC View Post

To Joobz:

I'm not going to let you sabotage this forum. If your not going to talk about Leif Ericson or his Christianty. I'm not going to respond.

I would appreciate it if the moderators would ask Joobz to stick to the topic of Lief Ericson and his Christianity.


If the stuff I'm talking about is not important why are you putting up such a fuss about it and why did the "Thomas Jefferson's admiration of Christianity" thread in the religion section get over 16,000 hits.
I request you also follow your advice and stick to the thread topic of lief and christianity. If you wish to know why I'm interested, please follow this link to the thread I started on the topic
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88044 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88044)

Kindly,
Joobz

[Tony]

I have to disagree.

You're still wrong.

It's no secret to many that the religiosity of the founders of America is strictly censored in American public school Education.

This is a lie.

Just read the forum "Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity" in the religious section. It should be on page 2 or 3 of that section.

Yeah, you were lying on that thread too.

How many people in the US do you think know that the viking Lief Ericson and his men were Christians.

Why does it matter? I doubt a lot of people in the US know that Marco Polo and Chris Columbus were Italian. There is no conspiracy to silence the "truth", Its called ignorance. It's kind of like how people like you don't know that the USA is a secular, not a christian, nation.

Maybe 1 in 5,000. I have to believe even if all the info Leif Roar stated was 100% verifiable there's no way any American public school student would learn anything about the parts dealing with Christianity.

You believe without evidence. American public school students learn about Columbus's Christianity, there is no reason to think they would not learn about Erikson's. You just want to believe they wouldn't because you have an irrational and paranoid persecution complex about your stupid religion.

[Cleon]

I'm not going to let you sabotage this forum.

THREAD!

[Cleon]

I have to disagree. It's no secret to many that the religiosity of the founders of America is strictly censored in American public school Education.

And it's "no secret" to some that the US government was responsible for 9/11, or that world leaders are actually reptilian space aliens in disguise. Doesn't make it true.


Just read the forum "Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity" in the religious section. It should be on page 2 or 3 of that section.

You mean, the thread where you made numerous ridiculous claims, all of which were shown to be a mixture of half-truths, baseless inferences, and outright lies?

The thread where you claimed Jefferson went to church services in a Rotunda that did not actually exist at the time?

You mean that thread?

It amazes me that you're so proud of it.


How many people in the US do you think know that the viking Lief Ericson and his men were Christians.

How many people in the US know who the frack Leif Ericsson actually was?

I have to believe even if all the info Leif Roar stated was 100% verifiable there's no way any American public school student would learn anything about the parts dealing with Christianity.

You "have to believe" it because for some reason you feel the need to believe things that simply aren't so.

[qayak]

Actually, the Saga of the Greenlanders doesn't mention Leiv's trip to Norway at all, and according to the Saga of Erik Red[1], Leiv found Vinland after he'd been in Norway (Roughly translated from a Norwegian translation):

That's correct. The Greenlanders Saga is the one with his trip to North America.

Leiv set to sea, but he stayed out a long time, and he found land that he had not known about before. There wheatefields grew wild, and there grew grape-vines. There were trees there of a kind that's called masur, and of all this they brought samples; some of the trees were so large that they were used for house timbers. Leiv found some people on a sea-raft and took them home with him. In this as in many other things he was magnamious and helpful, and he brought Christianity to [Greenland]. He was later known as Leiv the Lucky."

Now, it's very questionable how accurate this version is; it might very well have been 'massaged' to associate King Olav with the discovery. In general it is dangerous to read the Sagas as accurate portrayals of history.

I think there is little doubt that version is massaged.

The Greenlanders Saga tells us that Leif Erikson bought Bjarni Herjolfsson's ship, prepared it an then sailed directly to Vinland. Barni Herjolfson was the one who originally discovered North America when he was blown off course on his voyage to Greenland. We know Herjolfson was in Greenland at the time because it states in the Short Saga that once he got to Greenland he never went on another voyage but stayed in Greenland with his father.

And according to the sagas, Herjolfson had already told Erik the Red about the lands he had seen.

In the Greenlanders saga it states that sixteen winters after Eric the Red settled Greenland, Leif went to Norway to visit King Olaf. Eric settled Greenland in 985, that means Leif went to Norway in 1001. Except Olaf was already dead by then, having committed suicide in the middle of a naval battle in the fall of 1000. However, if the translation means that Leif visited Norway 16 years after Eric the Red originally went to Greenland when he was exiled from Iceland, that puts the trip in 997. this would make sense as the descriptions in the saga clearly show that Leif visited early in Olaf's reign.

As well, the woman who Leif met and had an illegitimate son with in the Hebrides, Thorgunna, srrives in Iceland with the boy, Thorgils in 1000. this would also seem to further the 997 date.

It further makes sense that Leif learned of the exploits of Olaf (a very bloody rise to power) from Thorer, the man who Leif rescued on his return voyage from Vinland, in 996. and who, with his wife Gudrid and three men, lived in Leif's home. As soon as the weather permitted in 997 Leif headed out.

But the fact remains, Leif bought his boat and sailed directly to Vinland. This makes it very unlikely that this voyage happened after his trip to Norway. I think Leif's voyage was direct from Greenland to North America. All the evidence supporting the Erik the Red version seem to come from the same source. They do not desrcribe anything of the actual voyage, only a couple of the major points.

[Leif Roar]

I have to disagree. It's no secret to many that the religiosity of the founders of America is strictly censored in American public school Education.

I thought you wanted to keep this thread focused on Leiv Eirikson and his Christianity?

I have to believe even if all the info Leif Roar stated was 100% verifiable there's no way any American public school student would learn anything about the parts dealing with Christianity.

As Leiv's religion is a minor detail in an somewhat interesting but not very significant historical anecdote, was irrelevant to his journey to Canada, that is as it should be. There are more important things to teach people about history.

Besides, Leiv Eirikson wasn't the first Greenlander to discover America.

[Leif Roar]

I think there is little doubt that version is massaged.

Personally I agree (for one thing, while an over-sea journey directly from Norway to Newfoundland and a return to Greenland might be possible, an expedition starting from Greenland seems much more plausible), but I don't have any historical works about Leiv Erikson at hand, so I don't know what the professional opinion is.

I just don't think there's any direct evidence in the sagas that the discovery of America predates Leiv's conversion to Christianity. The whole thing is a moot point anyway.

[CFLarsen]

I'm not going to let you sabotage this forum. If your not going to talk about Leif Ericson or his Christianty. I'm not going to respond.

I would appreciate it if the moderators would ask Joobz to stick to the topic of Lief Ericson and his Christianity.

If the stuff I'm talking about is not important why are you putting up such a fuss about it and why did the "Thomas Jefferson's admiration of Christianity" thread in the religion section get over 16,000 hits.

Again: What does it tell you that many of the first explorers from Europe were Christians?

[DOC]

Again: What does it tell you that many of the first explorers from Europe were Christians?

Well for one it tells me that Christianity played a big role in the settling of the Western Hemisphere. And thus once again we have the tremendous influence of Christ and the Bible on Civilization.

From the book "What if Jesus had never been born" by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe:

"... Columbus saw his voyage as fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied about the heathen turning to the true God. About a decade after his expedition, he wrote:

It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) to sail to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures... Our Lord Jesus Christ desired to perform a very obvious miracle in the voyage to the Indies."

The book goes on to say had Jesus never been born it is entirely possible we might never had come over to this continent.

No American public school student will ever learn what Columbus wrote above even though it is extremely important information.

I also think it is obvious that had Christ never been born the Pilgrim voyage never would of happened and the countless other Christians who came over to America for religion freedom probably never would of came. So it can be argued that Christianity was very important in the founding and settling of the Western Hemishpere.

[Leif Roar]

Well for one it tells me that Christianity played a big role in the settling of the Western Hemisphere. And thus once again we have the tremendous influence of Christ and the Bible on Civilization.

Except that Leiv Eirikson's discovery didn't play any real part in the settling of the Western hemisphere; so whether or not he was Christian doesn't tell you that.

The book goes on to say had Jesus never been born it is entirely possible we might never had come over to this continent.

By the same logic, if Mohammed had never been born there wouldn't have been a Moorish invasion of Spain, thus no Castile, thus no Queen Isabella, thus no expedition. Hey! What do you know -- the discovery of America only came about because of Mohammed. I bet you they don't teach that either in US schools.

[Lothian]

Well........snipYou are arguing that if Christ hadn’t been born, America would still be undiscovered. Idiot.

Sure, God inspired many mass murderers and warring factions, without them the world would certainly be different.

Without slavery progress would not have been made at the time it was. Progress would still have been made, however.

Slavery is bad but it did allow quicker progress in some areas, slower progress in others. Christianity is the same.

[DOC]

By the same logic, if Mohammed had never been born there wouldn't have been a Moorish invasion of Spain, thus no Castile, thus no Queen Isabella, thus no expedition. Hey! What do you know -- the discovery of America only came about because of Mohammed. I bet you they don't teach that either in US schools.

Well maybe that's why Mohammed was rated #1 on that list and Christ was rated #3 in influence. (Just kidding). Actually the author of that book said Christ would have been rated # 1 if more people actually followed the teachings of Christ in their everyday life. By the way Isaac Newton was rated #2.

[DOC]

Slavery is bad but it did allow some things to be done quicker. Christianity is the same.


Yea, the Jews (from which Christ came) knew all about slavery. They were slaves for hundreds of years in Egypt and Babylon.

[Leif Roar]

Yea, the Jews knew all about slavery. The were slaves for hundreds of years in Egypt and Babylon.

Oh, they knew it from the other side, too.

[Leif Roar]

Well maybe that's why Mohammed was rated #1 on that list and Christ was rated #3 in influence. (Just kidding). Actually the author of that book said Christ would have been rated # 1 if more people actually followed the teachings of Christ in their everyday life. By the way Isaac Newton was rated #2.

You lost me. What list? What does Newton have to do with the discovery of the Americas?

[CFLarsen]

Well for one it tells me that Christianity played a big role in the settling of the Western Hemisphere. And thus once again we have the tremendous influence of Christ and the Bible on Civilization.

From the book "What if Jesus had never been born" by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe:

"... Columbus saw his voyage as fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied about the heathen turning to the true God. About a decade after his expedition, he wrote:

It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) to sail to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures... Our Lord Jesus Christ desired to perform a very obvious miracle in the voyage to the Indies."

The book goes on to say had Jesus never been born it is entirely possible we might never had come over to this continent.

No American public school student will ever learn what Columbus wrote above even though it is extremely important information.

I also think it is obvious that had Christ never been born the Pilgrim voyage never would of happened and the countless other Christians who came over to America for religion freedom probably never would of came. So it can be argued that Christianity was very important in the founding and settling of the Western Hemishpere.

Crazy.

Pure and simple.

[TriangleMan]

I also think it is obvious that had Christ never been born the Pilgrim voyage never would of happened and the countless other Christians who came over to America for religion freedom probably never would of came.
They were looking for religious freedom because they were being persecuted by . . . other Christians!

So if Christ had never been born his followers wouldn't be persecuting other followers who then wouldn't have needed to flee to America? And we should be grateful for this? Christianity persucuting people was a good thing? Um . . .yeah, sounds great, sign me up. :rolleyes:

And what does this have to do with Leif Ericsson anyway, are you saying that if Christ hadn't been born Leif Ericsson wouldn't have gone to Vinland?

I think you should carefully read Leif Roar's post about Mohammed and Spain.

[Cleon]

Well for one it tells me that Christianity played a big role in the settling of the Western Hemisphere.

Well, that's wrong.

The Western Hemisphere was not settled by Christians, though I understand the Mormons seem to believe otherwise. They're wrong, too.

[Cleon]

Yea, the Jews (from which Christ came) knew all about slavery. They were slaves for hundreds of years in Egypt and Babylon.

You are aware that the story about Jews being slaves in Egypt was merely a story, right? The whole Exodus bit makes for a good story, but it didn't actually happen.

[slingblade]

Well maybe that's why Mohammed was rated #1 on that list and Christ was rated #3 in influence. (Just kidding). Actually the author of that book said Christ would have been rated # 1 if more people actually followed the teachings of Christ in their everyday life. By the way Isaac Newton was rated #2.

And it's pretty meaningless. You won't admit that, because you're easily impressed by things you can't do. Like thinking.

[gypsey]

DOC
Well for one it tells me that Christianity played a big role in the settling of the Western Hemisphere. And thus once again we have the tremendous influence of Christ and the Bible on Civilization.

From the book "What if Jesus had never been born" by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe:

"... Columbus saw his voyage as fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied about the heathen turning to the true God. About a decade after his expedition, he wrote:

It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) to sail to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures... Our Lord Jesus Christ desired to perform a very obvious miracle in the voyage to the Indies."

The book goes on to say had Jesus never been born it is entirely possible we might never had come over to this continent.

No American public school student will ever learn what Columbus wrote above even though it is extremely important information.

I also think it is obvious that had Christ never been born the Pilgrim voyage never would of happened and the countless other Christians who came over to America for religion freedom probably never would of came. So it can be argued that Christianity was very important in the founding and settling of the Western Hemishpere.


so you are saying that if christ had never been born my fathers people would still be on their ancestral lands there would have been no trail of tears no small pox epidemic no being almost driven to extinction because we would have never been "discovered" and our lands "settled"

[joobz]

Well maybe that's why Mohammed was rated #1 on that list and Christ was rated #3 in influence. (Just kidding). Actually the author of that book said Christ would have been rated # 1 if more people actually followed the teachings of Christ in their everyday life. By the way Isaac Newton was rated #2.

Yea, the Jews (from which Christ came) knew all about slavery. They were slaves for hundreds of years in Egypt and Babylon.

Well for one it tells me that Christianity played a big role in the settling of the Western Hemisphere. And thus once again we have the tremendous influence of Christ and the Bible on Civilization.

From the book "What if Jesus had never been born" by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe:

"... Columbus saw his voyage as fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied about the heathen turning to the true God. About a decade after his expedition, he wrote:

It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) to sail to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures... Our Lord Jesus Christ desired to perform a very obvious miracle in the voyage to the Indies."

The book goes on to say had Jesus never been born it is entirely possible we might never had come over to this continent.

No American public school student will ever learn what Columbus wrote above even though it is extremely important information.

I also think it is obvious that had Christ never been born the Pilgrim voyage never would of happened and the countless other Christians who came over to America for religion freedom probably never would of came. So it can be argued that Christianity was very important in the founding and settling of the Western Hemishpere.
Why are you discussing Columbus in a thread about Lief Erickson?

If you wish to comment on your overarching goal in presenting meaningless "facts", please do so in the thread created for such discussion.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88044

Sidenote, as gypsey pointed out, people were already living in the new world. And, I might add, christianity provided a moral blank check for Cortes, Francisco Pizzaro (among others).

[Oualawouzou]

so you are saying that if christ had never been born my fathers people would still be on their ancestral lands there would have been no trail of tears no small pox epidemic no being almost driven to extinction because we would have never been "discovered" and our lands "settled"

You thankless pagan, you.

[ClintonHammond]

"You could argue that Greenland is in North America."
No argument... Greenland IS part of North America....

[strathmeyer]

Sorry to interrupt my own forum here, but there are a group of people whose MO is attack the messenger because they don't like the message. The above being a perfect example. They'll even go to other forums to do it. The above individual posted a similar message to the one above in at least 2 other forums so I'll just repeat the response I gave in the other forum.

Wouldn't the prudent thing to do be to respond to his points? Because, in general, when somebody makes idiotic posts and then another poster replies with a clear, concise lists of numbered ideas, and the original poster than attack the replier instead of the ideas, I think the OP is an idiot. But this is just a mental shortcut I have developed due to my many years of experience on the streets; feel free to prove me wrong.

[eir_de_scania]

Well, what do you expect from someone who can't tell the difference between a forum and a thread?:confused:

Perhaps it's just me, but if you're a christian evangelist wouldn't you seek out the shiny new country to, you know, evangelize? Not just looking for timber and fertile ground, or a quicker way to reach India and the profitable trading there.

Not that Leif and his followers didn't act like so many later christians: killing their neighbours, fighting among themselves.

[Jon.]

"You could argue that Greenland is in North America."
No argument... Greenland IS part of North America....

Geographically, yes. Politically and historically, no. Culturally, arguable.

[ClintonHammond]

Greenland has politics???

LOL

[DOC]

Well, that's wrong.

The Western Hemisphere was not settled by Christians, though I understand the Mormons seem to believe otherwise. They're wrong, too.

I know you don't like Dr. James Kennedy but he said in 1776 about 98% of Americans of European decent were Protestant, about 1% Catholic, and about 1% Jewish. Sounds like the Northern Hemisphere was settled by Christians to me. This was from the audio tape "What if Christ had never been born".

Now I know your going to say, we already showed Kennedy lied and that whole routine. Yes he made a mistake about the date Jefferson's Mom died and maybe one or two other minor things, but on the whole I believe he's been accurate. I mean I wouldn't have been able to make 300+ posts in the Jefferson forum if he didn't give me a lot of ammunition.

Oh by the way that comment about the Rotunda earlier. I've already responded to that in the Jefferson forum. Jefferson did go to church in the House of Representatives. Whether it was the Rotunda or the House of Representatives next door is not the main issue. The main issue is that it was a Congressional building.

[CFLarsen]

Greenland has politics???

LOL

Yes, they do. They have been self-governing since 1979.

What is so funny about that?

[Cleon]

I know you don't like Dr. James Kennedy but he said in 1776 about 98% of Americans of European decent were Protestant, about 1% Catholic, and about 1% Jewish.

Lovely. And you know those figures are accurate because....?


Sounds like the Northern Hemisphere was settled by Christians to me.

Really? Doesn't sound that way to me. But then, I've actually done serious academic research in this field, and you have an audio recording by a preacher whose knowledge of history has found to be lacking.

Here's hint #1: North America was not settled in 1776.
Here's hint #2: The United States, much less the 13 colonies, is not synonymous with North America.

Do you get it yet?

North America was not settled by Christians.


Now I know your going to say, we already showed Kennedy lied and that whole routine. Yes he made a mistake about the date Jefferson's Mom died and maybe one or two other minor things, but on the whole I believe he's been accurate.

You can believe whatever you like. However, your belief does not fact make.


I mean I wouldn't have been able to make 300+ posts in the Jefferson forum if he didn't give me a lot of ammunition.

This is called a non sequitir. Your conclusion is not a logical conclusion from your premise.

Considering that 290+ of those posts are you repeating yourself, and the responses proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you and Kennedy are both wrong, your conclusion is somewhat...skewed, shall we say.


Oh by the way that comment about the Rotunda earlier. I've already responded to that in the Jefferson forum. Jefferson did go to church in the House of Representatives. Whether it was the Rotunda or the House of Representatives next door is not the main issue. The main issue is that it was a Congressional building.

Translation: "I know I made a glaring historical error, but it doesn't matter!"

Yeah.

[ClintonHammond]

" What is so funny about that?"

I wouldn't figure that 11 people, 37 caribou, and a buncha seagulls would have much need for government.

(I also might NOT be being 100% serious....)

[DOC]

so you are saying that if christ had never been born my fathers people would still be on their ancestral lands there would have been no trail of tears no small pox epidemic no being almost driven to extinction because we would have never been "discovered" and our lands "settled"

If Christ had never been born I have a feeling there would have been constant wars between tribes, and maybe later somebody like Hitler, Napolean, or the atheist Russians would have come along and completely wiped out all of the Native Tribes with their modern weapons.

And actually I heard there was a epidemic in Massachusetts "before" the Pilgrims arrived that wiped out a lot of Native Americans and that Massachusetts was probably one of the safest places they could of landed on the East Coast.

[joobz]

I know you don't like Dr. James Kennedy but he said in 1776 about 98% of Americans of European decent were Protestant, about 1% Catholic, and about 1% Jewish. Sounds like the Northern Hemisphere was settled by Christians to me. This was from the audio tape "What if Christ had never been born".
What about 1400? or 1300? or 1200? or 1100? How many of the people living in north America at those times were christian?

How about this, Since the people to have come to north america did so ~20,000 years before christ was born, I'm guessing they weren't christian.

[joobz]

If Christ had never been born I have a feeling there would have been constant wars between tribes, and maybe later somebody like Hitler, Napolean, or the atheist Russians would have come along and completely wiped out all of the Native Tribes with their modern weapons.
:eye-poppi I now understand why you avoid answering my questions.

Please, you are talking off topic here. There is a thread made for you to discuss your overarching beliefs. I think this one is a good thing to "discuss".

Christian conquisitors Did wipe out entire tribes and empires. Doesn't this mean that christians are no better than "Hitler, Napolean, or the atheist Russians" and indeed christianity allows for such actions?

[headscratcher4]

And actually I heard there was a epidemic in Massachusetts "before" the Pilgrims arrived that wiped out a lot of Native Americans and that Massachusetts was probably one of the safest places they could of landed on the East Coast.

Indeed...and not just in Mass. Throughout North, Central and South America. Epidemics broght to this hemisphere by the Spanish and other Europeans.

So, by your logic, God essentially knocked off millions of native Americans (deeming them and their children unworthy of a chance of salvation, one wonders?) to make room for the "christians" to move into the essentially empty spaces.

BTW, your whole 98% quote is darn near stupid. First, beyond native Americas .. in both hemispheres...who survived the European brought epidemics, they still constituted a very large segment of the population of both continents.

As to how many of them were "Christian," there is certainly room for doubt, as natives often had to be forcibly converted (at least in Spanish territory). That aside, don't forget other people ...oh, like Slaves.

You know, those black people that Christian businessment kidnapped (admittedly with help of their fellows) from Africa and forcibly resettled here. Again, forced conversions....seems to me to go against the grain of your concept of "christianity" as a revealed faith...but heck, what do I know. In any event, there were enough black and Afro Americas here at the time of the founding of the nation that they had to be considered as less than human so that the South could be induced to sign-on to the Constitution.

Funny how Christians could count those Christians as less than human for the purposes of the vote, but fully Christian when it comes to phoney point about the European invation of the Western Hemisphere.

Hey, but it's DOC's religion, so what do I know.

[gypsey]

Oualawouzou
Originally Posted by gypsey
so you are saying that if christ had never been born my fathers people would still be on their ancestral lands there would have been no trail of tears no small pox epidemic no being almost driven to extinction because we would have never been "discovered" and our lands "settled"

You thankless pagan, you.

oooh that is so sweet of you :th:

[gypsey]

DOC
If Christ had never been born I have a feeling there would have been constant wars between tribes, and maybe later somebody like Hitler, Napolean, or the atheist Russians would have come along and completely wiped out all of the Native Tribes with their modern weapons.

And actually I heard there was a epidemic in Massachusetts "before" the Pilgrims arrived that wiped out a lot of Native Americans and that Massachusetts was probably one of the safest places they could of landed on the East Coast.

it's very obvious that your knowledge of native americans is sadly lacking and if your history lessons come from james kennedy i can certainly understand why
here is are a couple sites to help you learn of our people http://www.cherokee.org/home.aspx?section=culture&culture=history&cat=gV4q5zmQTuw=

http://cherokeehistory.com/index.html

as a nation the Tsalagi are complicated and what is tradition in one band will be different in another yet there are NO clans who would force another to their way unlike mr j kennedy

[kmortis]

It's a thread, not a forum.

And anyone are free to post here. You don't get to choose who posts here.

Claus, seriously, don't bother. This guy is an idiot of the first water. We've been trying to teach him that exact point since his Thomas Jefferson thread in R&P. No matter how many times someone point this out to him, he just goes blithely on as if it never happened. I guess that it's another way that we're "attacking the messenger". If you wanted to list someone, here's a perfect candidate, he'll never, ever answer.

[kmortis]

Greenland has politics???

LOL

Only in the summer....:p

[fuelair]

To Slingblade, If you don't like the forum than stay out, it's very simple. Maybe the fact that many of the first explorers from Europe were Christians tells us something. Even Columbus was heavy into the bible. I realize Columbus had his faults and did some bad things but we shouldn't ru away from history or ask that it be hidde somewhere.

As you ca see the 14th letter of the alphabet is ot workig o my keyboard. A-y advise out there. Also earlier whe I hit E-ter it would go to the -ext li-e & pri-t a letter p. Looks like I might be out for awhile. Ca- a virus do this.
If you do not like the forum, you leave - you add nothing here. Your words- on the rare occasion they have any point - are (kindness here) error ridden. Oh by the way, I do mean the forum - you meant the thread (another error).
Second, lots of people are Xtian - so what, lots of people voted for Bush - being in error can be excused - if it is not abused. You are abusing your error.

[joobz]

If Christ had never been born I have a feeling there would have been constant wars between tribes, and maybe later somebody like Hitler, Napolean, or the atheist Russians would have come along and completely wiped out all of the Native Tribes with their modern weapons.

And actually I heard there was a epidemic in Massachusetts "before" the Pilgrims arrived that wiped out a lot of Native Americans and that Massachusetts was probably one of the safest places they could of landed on the East Coast.
Sorry, just realized,
Are you saying that christianity protected the indians from christians like Hilter and Napoleon?

[strathmeyer]

Sounds like the Northern Hemisphere was settled by Christians to me.

Are you sure it wasn't settled by people escaping from Christians?

[TriangleMan]

If Christ had never been born I have a feeling there would have been constant wars between tribes, and maybe later somebody like Hitler, Napolean, or the atheist Russians would have come along and completely wiped out all of the Native Tribes with their modern weapons.

And actually I heard there was a epidemic in Massachusetts "before" the Pilgrims arrived that wiped out a lot of Native Americans and that Massachusetts was probably one of the safest places they could of landed on the East Coast.

Follow your own advice DOC:

And please don't come into this forum anymore unless you are talking about Leif Ericson.

[eir_de_scania]

And here I thought the northern hemisphere was settled thousands of years BC. Did I miss something?

[Lothian]

And here I thought the northern hemisphere was settled thousands of years BC. Did I miss something?Yes, the first settlers were Adam a bloke and Eve a lass. They worshiped God. Jesus and God are the same. So they worshiped Jesus and are Christians.

I read it in a book, so it must be true…………

[CFLarsen]

And here I thought the northern hemisphere was settled thousands of years BC. Did I miss something?

Since there is ample evidence that the Northern Hemisphere was settled thousands of years before Christianity, it follows that DOC doesn't consider those...creatures...to be humans.

According to DOC, you can only be a human if you are a Christian. All non-Christians are sub-humans.

[headscratcher4]

Since there is ample evidence that the Northern Hemisphere was settled thousands of years before Christianity, it follows that DOC doesn't consider those...creatures...to be humans.

According to DOC, you can only be a human if you are a Christian. All non-Christians are sub-humans.

Indeed...it is worse than that. What he is really suggesting is, essentially, God let millions of native Americas die from disease to clear the continents for "christians" rather than provide them with a revelation that would lead to their salvation...(even Mormons believe that Jesus gave the people of America's a chance for revolation which, witht he exception of Morni and his family, was rejected).

In other words, God is the god of Christian white Europeans, acting in history to allow either the death or enslavement of sub-species of humans (in this case blacks and native Americans) by "christians" because it is only through white "christian" european civilization that their remnent would find salvation.

God, in short kills tens of millions so that the founding fathers could establish a Christian nation here...take the logic from there.

[Morrigan]

He was? Damn, a viking just became less badass and more lame in my mind. :( Oh well!

This thread is as hilarious as a train wreck. Here's what I learned:

A famous viking was a Christian, and this matters beyond him becoming slightly less metal.
Colombus "discovered" America because of Jesus. This is also highly relevant to... something, no doubt.
Derails about Jefferson, Colombus and colonization are permitted if made by the topic starter only, unacceptable otherwise.
A thread is a forum.
Mass enslavement of Jews by the Egyptians is NOT just a mythological story, but Truth(tm), despite total lack of historical and archaeological evidence.
The alleged birth of Jesus "saved" the Native Americans from tribal warfare and elimination from modern weapons.
Either settling is the same thing as colonizing, or the thread starter thinks Native Americans are not humans.

[Miss Anthrope]

He was? Damn, a viking just became less badass and more lame in my mind. :( Oh well!

This thread is as hilarious as a train wreck. Here's what I learned:
A famous viking was a Christian, and this matters beyond him becoming slightly less metal.
Colombus "discovered" America because of Jesus. This is also highly relevant to... something, no doubt.
Derails about Jefferson, Colombus and colonization are permitted if made by the topic starter only, unacceptable otherwise.
A thread is a forum.
Mass enslavement of Jews by the Egyptians is NOT just a mythological story, but Truth(tm), despite total lack of historical and archaeological evidence.
The alleged birth of Jesus "saved" the Native Americans from tribal warfare and elimination from modern weapons.
Either settling is the same thing as colonizing, or the thread starter thinks Native Americans are not humans.

Pretty accurate recap.

[hgc]

How many people in the US do you think know that the viking Lief Ericson and his men were Christians. Maybe 1 in 5,000. I have to believe even if all the info Leif Roar stated was 100% verifiable there's no way any American public school student would learn anything about the parts dealing with Christianity.


Who cares? Is this information found in The Bible? The book of Lief, perhaps? The more you promote this non-biblical vanity, the more you distract from God's true word. Tool of Satan.

[Miss Anthrope]

Doc, should kids in schools also learn that Albert Einstien may have been polyamorous?

Oh fer.......

[Cleon]

Doc, should kids in schools also learn that Albert Einstien may have been polyamorous?


...Or that he was a socialist?

Helen Keller was, too, for that matter.

[hgc]

Helen Keller was, too, for that matter.


There's a pretty straightforward case of a witch.

[kmortis]

There's a pretty straightforward case of a witch.

What? Hellen Keller was made of wood?

[wollery]

What? Hellen Keller was made of wood?No, she weighed the same as a duck!

[Damien Evans]

Yes, I was surprised to learn that Leif Ericson (the man who discovered North America about 500 years before Columbus) and all of his men were Christians. And he was an evangelist to the country of Greenland.

http://www.viking.no/e/people/leif/e-leiv.htm

Care Factor = 0 and dropping

[Damien Evans]

He was? Damn, a viking just became less badass and more lame in my mind. :( Oh well!

This thread is as hilarious as a train wreck. Here's what I learned:

A famous viking was a Christian, and this matters beyond him becoming slightly less metal.
Colombus "discovered" America because of Jesus. This is also highly relevant to... something, no doubt.
Derails about Jefferson, Colombus and colonization are permitted if made by the topic starter only, unacceptable otherwise.
A thread is a forum.
Mass enslavement of Jews by the Egyptians is NOT just a mythological story, but Truth(tm), despite total lack of historical and archaeological evidence.
The alleged birth of Jesus "saved" the Native Americans from tribal warfare and elimination from modern weapons.
Either settling is the same thing as colonizing, or the thread starter thinks Native Americans are not humans.


yep, that about sums it up

[Damien Evans]

No, she weighed the same as a duck!

And therefore....

A WITCH!!!

BURN HER!!! YEAH!!!

[ponderingturtle]

Colombus "discovered" America because of Jesus. This is also highly relevant to... something, no doubt.

I have heard this argued in a teaching company lecture series about how apocalyptic thought influenced culture. The idea was that for Christ to return and end the world everyone needed to be aware of the one true church, the catholic church, so they could either accept or reject it.

What this has to do with evangelicalism escapes me.

[DOC]

Since there is ample evidence that the Northern Hemisphere was settled thousands of years before Christianity, it follows that DOC doesn't consider those...creatures...to be humans.

According to DOC, you can only be a human if you are a Christian. All non-Christians are sub-humans.


You know people get sued for libel, don't you. It's also considered unethical.

[DOC]

Who cares? Is this information found in The Bible? The book of Lief, perhaps? The more you promote this non-biblical vanity, the more you distract from God's true word. Tool of Satan.


A guys got the right to talk history, doesn't he. They moved this thread out of the religion section and put it here. Maybe you should complain that it belongs back in the religion section.

[DOC]

He was? Damn, a viking just became less badass and more lame in my mind. :( Oh well!

This thread is as hilarious as a train wreck.

You learned that something you learned in secular school (namely that the Vikings (specifically Lief Ericson and his men) weren't such bad asses at all and in fact were Christians. And yet you complain. I would be more likely to thank someone if I learned something new and different about a famous historical person than to complain.

[Miss Anthrope]

You learned that something you learned in secular school (namely that the Vikings (specifically Lief Ericson and his men) weren't such bad asses at all and in fact were Christians. And yet you complain. I would be more likely to thank someone if I learned something new and different about a famous historical person than to complain.

But yet you don't understand the resounding "SO WHAT?!?!" that so many are offering up in response.

[DOC]

Indeed...it is worse than that. What he is really suggesting is, essentially, God let millions of native Americas die from disease to clear the continents for "christians" rather than provide them with a revelation that would lead to their salvation....

Huh, you've got a wild imagination. I brought up that fact about an Indian epidemic in Massachusetts "before" the Pilgrims arrived because someone mentioned that the settlers brought smallpox to the Indians. Epidemics were around even before the settlers got here.

[DOC]

But yet you don't understand the resounding "SO WHAT?!?!" that so many are offering up in response.

And many people don't understand my response that if you don't think the history I'm talking about is important than go to a thread that you do find important. The more "so many" people complain about its lack of importance (in a thread that no one is being force to enter or stay in) the more it tells me (and should tell others) that it is important.

[Miss Anthrope]

And many people don't understand my response that if you don't think the history I'm talking about is important than go to a thread that you do find important. The more "so many" people complain about its lack of importance (in a thread that no one is being force to enter or stay in) the more it tells me (and should tell others) that it is important.

You keep saying that, but it still doesn't make much sense. Why is it important, Doc. WHY? Lay it out.

[DOC]

Sorry, just realized,
Are you saying that christianity protected the indians from christians like Hilter and Napoleon?

Anybody who thinks Hitler was a true Christian is either mentally ill or grossly misinformed, plain and simple. Napolean seems more like a guy with a Napoleonic Complex than a true Christian.

[DOC]

You keep saying that, but it still doesn't make much sense. Why is it important, Doc. WHY? Lay it out.

To be honest I don't completely understand it myself, but for some reason all the fuss people are making about it tells me it's important.

I mean why should slingblade put up such a fuss (in extra large letters) about the thread being in the religious section (when it obviously has religious connotations) if he wasn't worried about it in someway.

[Miss Anthrope]

To be honest I don't completely understand it myself, but for some reason all the fuss people are making about it tells me it's important.

You really need to understand the context here. The fuss is in regards to what appears to some as obsessive level interest on your part in pointing out who is and isn't a christian.

[Miss Anthrope]

Anybody who thinks Hitler was a true Christian is either mentally ill or grossly misinformed, plain and simple. Napolean seems more like a guy with a Napoleonic Complex than a true Christian.

Who, historically, has been a true Christian? (Not to be mistaken with a Scotsman, of course)

Anyone involved in the inquisition? Those who burned witches in Salem? Those nuts who protest funerals? Televangelists? Faith healers? WHO?!?!

Certainly not Thomas Jefferson.

You certainly cannot know the mind or heart of Columbus, Lief, any of those folks. You don't know who they lusted after in their heart, if they lied, if they merely masqueraded as someone of faith for their own advancement. You certainly cannot know if they accepted the cultural identity of Christianity simply because it was what was expected of them in society. You can't know any of that.

[DOC]

You really need to understand the context here. The fuss is in regards to what appears to some as obsessive level interest on your part in pointing out who is and isn't a christian.

I've got a right to have an obsessive or non-obsessive interest in who and who and who is not Christian. If someone does not share that interest stay out of the forum or block it. It's very simple. Anymore mention of the "so what" issue in here just verifies what I've been saying.

[DOC]

Who, historically, has been a true Christian? (Not to be mistaken with a Scotsman, of course)

Anyone involved in the inquisition? Those who burned witches in Salem? Those nuts who protest funerals? Televangelists? Faith healers? WHO?!?!


Mother Theresa, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, Paul the Apostle, to name a few of the more well-known ones.

[Miss Anthrope]

Mother Theresa, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, Paul the Apostle, to name a few of the more well-known ones.

Mother Theresa, you're still on about her? She was cruel.

Pope John Paul: Well, aside from that graven image thing and claiming to speak for god........

Billy Graham.....maybe. Don't know enough.

Paul fit the biblical definition of a false prophet to a T.

[Miss Anthrope]

I've got a right to have an obsessive or non-obsessive interest in who and who and who is not Christian. If someone does not share that interest stay out of the forum or block it. It's very simple. Anymore mention of the "so what" issue in here just verifies what I've been saying.

Incorrect. Yes, you have a right to be obsessive or not. But people have just as much a right to post wherever they like here and question you.

[Morrigan]

You learned that something you learned in secular school
Actually, I had never read the words "Lief Erikson" in school.


(namely that the Vikings (specifically Lief Ericson and his men) weren't such bad asses at all and in fact were Christians. And yet you complain. I would be more likely to thank someone if I learned something new and different about a famous historical person than to complain.
I'm not complaining about anything, I'm mocking you. I'm not surprised you are too simple to tell the difference.

[joobz]

Anybody who thinks Hitler was a true Christian is either mentally ill or grossly misinformed, plain and simple. Napolean seems more like a guy with a Napoleonic Complex than a true Christian.
They are christians.(you don't get to decide who is and who isn't chrisitian).
They did horrible things.
Therefore Christianity allows for people to do horrible things.

Your entire concept is wrong.

[joobz]

I've got a right to have an obsessive or non-obsessive interest in who and who and who is not Christian. If someone does not share that interest stay out of the forum or block it. It's very simple. Anymore mention of the "so what" issue in here just verifies what I've been saying.
Hmm, because you take such aversion to the ACLU, that must mean that there must be something to what the ACLU is saying? They must be right!!!!!


(can you spot the logical fallacy?)

[joobz]

Mother Theresa, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, Paul the Apostle, to name a few of the more well-known ones.
Don't forget

Ted Bundy
Tomas de Torquemada
Elizabeth Bathory
Vlad III the Impaler
Francisco Pizzaro
Queen Mary Tudor
Samuel Parris
Adolf Hitler
Slobodan Milosevic
Augusto Pinochet
H. H. Holmes
Gilles de Rais
Heinrich Himmler


You see,
You take the good,
You take the bad,
You take them both and there you have
The facts of life!
The facts of life!

[Cleon]

Aw, how cute. DOC is still claiming that he's "talking history."

DOC, you still need to learn the difference between "history" and "psuedohistory."

[Big Les]

Archaeologists have been explaining that the Vikings as a culture weren't especially violent or nasty, and in fact created wonderful works of art, built great settlements etc etc for the last 20 years at least. So your OP comes as no revelation to anyone with the most superficial interest. That Ericsson himself may have been notionally Christian might get you a "hmm, I hadn't thought about that before". But then we're back to "what's your point?", "why does this matter?", and "how can you describe his band as being evangelists based upon their apparent religious choices?".

If you can answer those questions, this thread might go somewhere interesting. Then again, it might not.

[qayak]

Archaeologists have been explaining that the Vikings as a culture weren't especially violent or nasty, and in fact created wonderful works of art, built great settlements etc etc for the last 20 years at least.

The ability or desire to create beautiful art, great writings, or civilizations has little bearing on whether a group was violent or not. I use as examples the samauri of Japan who created great caligraphy and haiku and the Haida of the Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia Canada who created great carvings.

If you read the sagas, the Vikings were very violent. Perhaps they were not especially violent for their time though. If you look at the reason Eric the Red went to settle Greenland, it was because he had killed several people (sons of a rival) and was exiled from Iceland. Expeditions of Vikings to North America indiscriminantly killed many natives, men, women and children.

In fact, there is no such race as Vikings, they were Norse. Viking was a word that described their tendancy to plunder coastline villages. When the Norse went on one of these rape and pillage expeditions they were said to have "gone viking."

[Mark A. Siefert]

Mother Theresa...

A sadistic zealot who let people die in squalor...

...Billy Graham...

...an antisemite and a homophobe...

...Pope John Paul II...

...a backwards old man who couldn't keep his nose out of woman's reproductive systems...

...Paul the Apostle.

...a misogynistic control freak.

Really, is this THE BEST Christianity has to offer?

Thank reason I'm an atheist.

[Leif Roar]

If you read the sagas, the Vikings were very violent.

And if you read modern history books, you'll find humans more or less constantly warring, with peace usually just being a period of lead-up to the next war. The sagas are violent because their topic matter is violent: kings and great men, wars and adventure. They're not a good representation of viking society overall.

Expeditions of Vikings to North America indiscriminantly killed many natives, men, women and children.

I'm curious what you base that statement on. I'm not aware of any archaelogical evidence to this, and as far as I recall, the sagas only mentions one incident where vikings killed natives, and according to the saga it was the natives that attacked the vikings. (There's no reason to believe the saga in this, of course, but it does mean the sagas don't support the notion that vkings "indiscriminantly killed many natives, women and children."

In fact, there is no such race as Vikings, they were Norse.

The word "Norse" isn't really more correct than the work "viking." Both words have been generalized beyond their original, specific meanings to about the same extent. ("Norse" originally only referred to the western parts of Scandinavian language and culture.)

[ponderingturtle]

The ability or desire to create beautiful art, great writings, or civilizations has little bearing on whether a group was violent or not. I use as examples the samauri of Japan who created great caligraphy and haiku and the Haida of the Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia Canada who created great carvings.

If you read the sagas, the Vikings were very violent. Perhaps they were not especially violent for their time though. If you look at the reason Eric the Red went to settle Greenland, it was because he had killed several people (sons of a rival) and was exiled from Iceland. Expeditions of Vikings to North America indiscriminantly killed many natives, men, women and children.

In fact, there is no such race as Vikings, they were Norse. Viking was a word that described their tendancy to plunder coastline villages. When the Norse went on one of these rape and pillage expeditions they were said to have "gone viking."

Gone Viking was an expedition, this could include plunder or trade. They where very active traders around the north see and founded Moscow.

They do not seem violent compared to say the Civilized Romans.

[Big Les]

The ability or desire to create beautiful art, great writings, or civilizations has little bearing on whether a group was violent or not. I use as examples the samauri of Japan who created great caligraphy and haiku and the Haida of the Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia Canada who created great carvings.

If you read the sagas, the Vikings were very violent. Perhaps they were not especially violent for their time though. If you look at the reason Eric the Red went to settle Greenland, it was because he had killed several people (sons of a rival) and was exiled from Iceland. Expeditions of Vikings to North America indiscriminantly killed many natives, men, women and children.

In fact, there is no such race as Vikings, they were Norse. Viking was a word that described their tendancy to plunder coastline villages. When the Norse went on one of these rape and pillage expeditions they were said to have "gone viking."

You're quite right of course. I was just trying to present the latter-day interpretation that's made of the "vikings" (and I'm aware of the different peoples involved as well as the origin of the word). Which is that they were not the mindless savages that they have been painted and had just as sophisticated a culture (yet also a warrior tradition) as their contemporaries in Europe.

As such, matey-boy's OP here is redundant - that was my point. Personally I think the "revisionist" view of the vikings tends to be over-simplified and actively plays down their violent exploits; which I suspect is what you thought I was doing.

[arthwollipot]

You learned that something you learned in secular school (namely that the Vikings (specifically Lief Ericson and his men) weren't such bad asses at all and in fact were Christians. And yet you complain. I would be more likely to thank someone if I learned something new and different about a famous historical person than to complain.

Well, the fact that Norway was converted to Christianity by Saint Olaf (Harald Hardrada's older brother) at the point of a sword tells you something. You can read all about it in the Heimskringla (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/598) - the Chronicles of the Kings of Norway - Olaf's Saga.

Basically, the story goes like this: Olaf travelled throughout Norway and said to people "you've got two choices - you can convert to Christianity or you can fight me". Since he killed everyone he fought, most people converted.

Was Saint Olaf therefore a badass? I think so. For this conversion (and for a miraculous post-mortem appearance to a woman which allowed her to free Harald from a Byzantine prison), he was canonised.

Leif Ericson was around the same time as Saint Olaf. He may well have been a Christian, except that the saga suggests that he wasn't. Hardradr's saga doesn't mention Harald's religion either.

I bet you've never even heard of Harald Hardrada, who was a much bigger badass than Leif Ericson.

[Leif Roar]

Basically, the story goes like this: Olaf travelled throughout Norway and said to people "you've got two choices - you can convert to Christianity or you can fight me". Since he killed everyone he fought, most people converted.

That's vastly oversimplified, to the point of being erronous.

[arthwollipot]

That's vastly oversimplified, to the point of being erronous.

It is oversimplified, and my excuse is simply that it's been some time since I read it. I really should do so again, shouldn't I?

[arthwollipot]

Here are a few passages from Olaf's Saga in Snorri's Heimskringla - the Chronicles of the King of Norway. I think they show fairly clearly that much of Norway was converted to Christianity at the point of a sword:

72. OLAF'S JOURNEY TO THE UPLANDS.

When King Olaf had despatched Bjorn and his followers to
Gautland, he sent other people also to the Uplands, with the
errand that they should have guest-quarters prepared for him, as
he intended that winter (A.D. 1018) to live as guest in the
Uplands; for it had been the custom of former kings to make a
progress in guest-quarters every third year in the Uplands. In
autumn he began his progress from Sarpsborg, and went first to
Vingulmark. He ordered his progress so that he came first to
lodge in the neighbourhood of the forest habitations, and
summoned to him all the men of the habitations who dwelt at the
greatest distance from the head-habitations of the district; and
he inquired particularly how it stood with their Christianity,
and, where improvement was needful, he taught them the right
customs. If any there were who would not renounce heathen ways,
he took the matter so zealously that he drove some out of the
country, mutilated others of hands or feet, or stung their eyes
out; hung up some, cut down some with the sword; but let none go
unpunished who would not serve God. He went thus through the
whole district, sparing neither great nor small. He gave them
teachers, and placed these as thickly in the country as he saw
needful. In this manner he went about in that district, and had
300 deadly men-at-arms with him; and then proceeded to Raumarike.
He soon perceived that Christianity was thriving less the farther
he proceeded into the interior of the country. He went forward
everywhere in the same way, converting all the people to the
right faith, and severely punishing all who would not listen to
his word.

111. OF THE PEOPLE OF HALOGALAND.

Olaf rigged out five ships in spring (A.D. 1020), and had with
him about 300 men. When he was ready for sea he set northwards
along the land; and when he came to Naumudal district he summoned
the bondes to a Thing, and at every Thing was accepted as king.
He also made the laws to be read there as elsewhere, by which the
people are commanded to observe Christianity; and he threatened
every man with loss of life, and limbs, and property who would
not subject himself to Christian law. He inflicted severe
punishments on many men, great as well as small, and left no
district until the people had consented to adopt the holy faith.
The most of the men of power and of the great bondes made feasts
for the king, and so he proceeded all the way north to
Halogaland. Harek of Thjotta also made a feast for the king, at
which there was a great multitude of guests, and the feast was
very splendid. Harek was made lenderman, and got the same
privileges he had enjoyed under the former chiefs of the country.

117. KING OLAF'S JOURNEY TO THE UPLANDS.

When King Olaf had been seven years (A.D. 1015-1021) in Norway
the earls Thorfin and Bruse came to him, as before related, in
the summer, from Orkney, and he became master of their land. The
same summer Olaf went to North and South More, and in autumn to
Raumsdal. He left his ships there, and came to the Uplands, and
to Lesjar. Here he laid hold of all the best men, and forced
them, both at Lesjar and Dovre, either to receive Christianity or
suffer death, if they were not so lucky as to escape. After they
received Christianity, the king took their sons in his hands as
hostages for their fidelity. The king stayed several nights at a
farm in Lesjar called Boar, where he placed priests. Then he
proceeded over Orkadal and Lorodal, and came down from the
Uplands at a place called Stafabrekka. There a river runs along
the valley, called the Otta, and a beautiful hamlet, by name
Loar, lies on both sides of the river, and the king could see far
down over the whole neighbourhood. "A pity it is," said the
king, "so beautiful a hamlet should be burnt." And he proceeded
down the valley with his people, and was all night on a farm
called Nes. The king took his lodging in a loft, where he slept
himself; and it stands to the present day, without anything in it
having been altered since. The king was five days there, and
summoned by message-token the people to a Thing, both for the
districts of Vagar, Lear, and Hedal; and gave out the message
along with the token, that they must either receive Christianity
and give their sons as hostages, or see their habitations burnt.
They came before the king, and submitted to his pleasure; but
some fled south down the valley.

Now - was Olaf a badass? Oh yes, he was. Were the Vikings as a whole badasses? Yes. They were. They also happened to be explorers and traders, but badassness ran in their blood. This is what "evangelism" meant to the viking kings. Convert to Christianity or be driven out of the country, mutilated of hands and feet, have your eyes put out, have your villages burned...

Leif Erikson may very well have been a Christian. That doesn't mean he wasn't a badass. Christianity in the first millenium AD was a very different beast to Christianity today. Christianity in 1000AD still had Crusades, Inquisitions and Conquistdores ahead of it. Today, Christianity has learned from the mistakes of its past (well, some Christians have anyway), and have adopted a more softly-softly approach to religion.

There is one mention in the saga of Olaf using a slightly more creative method of conversion, which I find very interesting:

119. DALE-GUDBRAND IS BAPTIZED.

There was a man with King Olaf called Kolbein Sterke (the
strong), who came from a family in the Fjord district. Usually
he was so equipped that he was girt with a sword, and besides
carried a great stake, otherwise called a club, in his hands.
The king told Kolbein to stand nearest to him in the morning; and
gave orders to his people to go down in the night to where the
ships of the bondes lay and bore holes in them, and to set loose
their horses on the farms where they were; all which was done.
Now the king was in prayer all the night, beseeching God of His
goodness and mercy to release him from evil. When mass was
ended, and morning was grey, the king went to the Thing. When he
came there some bondes had already arrived, and they saw a great
crowd coming along, and bearing among them a huge man's image
glancing with gold and silver. When the bondes who were at the
Thing saw it they started up, and bowed themselves down before
the ugly idol. Thereupon it was set down upon the Thing-field;
and on the one side of it sat the bondes, and on the other the
king and his people.

Then Dale-Gudbrand stood up, and said, "Where now, king, is thy
god? I think he will now carry his head lower; and neither thou,
nor the man with the horn whom ye call bishop, and sits there
beside thee, are so bold to-day as on the former days; for now
our god, who rules over all, is come, and looks on you with an
angry eye; and now I see well enough that ye are terrified, and
scarcely dare to raise your eyes. Throw away now all your
opposition, and believe in the god who has all your fate in his
hands."

The king now whispers to Kolbein Sterke, without the bondes
perceiving it, "If it come so in the course of my speech that the
bondes look another way than towards their idol, strike him as
hard as thou canst with thy club."

The king then stood up and spoke. "Much hast thou talked to us
this morning, and greatly hast thou wondered that thou canst not
see our God; but we expect that he will soon come to us. Thou
wouldst frighten us with thy god, who is both blind and deaf, and
can neither save himself nor others, and cannot even move about
without being carried; but now I expect it will be but a short
time before he meets his fate: for turn your eyes towards the
east, -- behold our God advancing in great light."

The sun was rising, and all turned to look. At that moment
Kolbein gave their god a stroke, so that the idol burst asunder;
and there ran out of it mice as big almost as cats, and reptiles,
and adders. The bondes were so terrified that some fled to their
ships; but when they sprang out upon them they filled with water,
and could not get away. Others ran to their horses, but could
not find them. The king then ordered the bondes to be called
together, saying he wanted to speak with them; on which the
bondes came back, and the Thing was again seated.

The king rose up and said, "I do not understand what your noise
and running mean. Ye see yourselves what your god can do, -- the
idol ye adorned with gold and silver, and brought meat and
provisions to. Ye see now that the protecting powers who used it
were the mice and adders, reptiles and paddocks; and they do ill
who trust to such, and will not abandon this folly. Take now
your gold and ornaments that are lying strewed about on the
grass, and give them to your wives and daughters; but never hang
them hereafter upon stock or stone. Here are now two conditions
between us to choose upon, -- either accept Christianity, or
fight this very day; and the victory be to them to whom the God
we worship gives it."

Then Dale-Gudbrand stood up and said, "We have sustained great
damage upon our god; but since he will not help us, we will
believe in the God thou believest in."

Then all received Christianity. The bishop baptized Gudbrand and
his son. King Olaf and Bishop Sigurd left behind them teachers,
and they who met as enemies parted as friends; and Gudbrand built
a church in the valley.

Source (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext96/hmskr10.txt)

[Mark A. Siefert]

This is what "evangelism" meant to the viking kings. Convert to Christianity or be driven out of the country, mutilated of hands and feet, have your eyes put out, have your villages burned...



I'm pretty sure that's what "evangelism" means to DOC and others like him as well.

[Leif Roar]

Here are a few passages from Olaf's Saga in Snorri's Heimskringla - the Chronicles of the King of Norway. I think they show fairly clearly that much of Norway was converted to Christianity at the point of a sword:

You can't take the Sagas at face value as history. They're literary works and while they have great value as a historic source, they need to be handled carefully.

Now, there was certainly an element of force involved in king Olav's christening of Norway, but it was not a simple matter of him travelling around the land and giving people the choice of "convert or die."

By the time of Olav's kingship, christendom was already well established in Norway. It had been introduced, not only through vikings encountering and adopting it on travels and through the import of thralls, but through two centuries of organized and directed missionary work and through the works of at least two earlier christian kings.

Secondly, Olav's most significant work in the christening was not any battle or spectacular conversion, but the legal adoption of christianity as the state religion at a thing meeting at Moster. Of course, this is also a form of force, but it is a use of force that originates from within the society itself rather than being imposed on it from without. If you will, it becomes not "conversion by sword" but instead "conversion by fasces."

Thirdly, Olav's battles were primarily military-political rather than religious. While, yes, there was a "pagan opposition" to his rule, this was only one element in the opposition against him, and not really the main one. When he returned to Norway after his flight in -28, he was opposed by an army which consisted of both pagan and christian chieftains and farmers.

Now, this is not to say that Olav (and other kings) did not use force and military strength to enforce conversion; clearly they did. But that is not the whole picture -- the sword played a part in the christening of Norway, but only a part.

[arthwollipot]

Thirdly, Olav's battles were primarily military-political rather than religious. While, yes, there was a "pagan opposition" to his rule, this was only one element in the opposition against him, and not really the main one. When he returned to Norway after his flight in -28, he was opposed by an army which consisted of both pagan and christian chieftains and farmers.

Now, this is not to say that Olav (and other kings) did not use force and military strength to enforce conversion; clearly they did. But that is not the whole picture -- the sword played a part in the christening of Norway, but only a part.

Agreed. I don't want to give the impression that I felt that spreading Christianity was the sole reason for Olav's battles. He spread Christianity more to ensure that those he conquered stayed conquered. He used Christianity - Christianity didn't use him.

Anyway, my point remains that even Christian vikings were a pretty nasty bunch of people. The biggest badass of the lot - Harald Hardrada, Olav's younger brother (and my favourite viking of all time) - went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and served in the Byzantine emperor's personal Varangian Guard, and came eventually to command it.

So I say again, for DOC's benefit - Even if Leif Erikson was a Christian (and the evidence is not convincing), that doesn't mean that he wasn't a badass.

[DOC]

So I say again, for DOC's benefit - Even if Leif Erikson was a Christian (and the evidence is not convincing), that doesn't mean that he wasn't a badass.

True, being a Christian doesn't mean your a wimp. Evander Holyfield is a Christian and he kicked Mike Tyson's butt twice. And even Christ drove the money lenders out of the Temple.

I would of like to seen the ACLU mess with Leif Ericson and his men.

[Morrigan]

Oh, I never said being a christian meant you can't be a badass. Only, the same person would be just a bit -more- badass if they were pagan instead. You know, Thor and Jupiter > Jesus and all that. :D

[Morrigan]

I would of like to seen the ACLU mess with Leif Ericson and his men.
Holy awful grammar, Batman! ;)

[Miss Anthrope]

I would of like to seen the ACLU mess with Leif Ericson and his men.

So I take this to mean you are arguing in favor of "might makes right?" So a system of laws and order is not the Christian way? Better to be brutal and uncivilized? Bullying, if you will?

Just checking.

[qayak]

True, being a Christian doesn't mean your a wimp. Evander Holyfield is a Christian and he kicked Mike Tyson's butt twice. And even Christ drove the money lenders out of the Temple.

I would of like to seen the ACLU mess with Leif Ericson and his men.

The Vikings got their butts handed to them by the Skraelings. The Vikings made the mistake of bringing swords and axes to a bow and arrow fight! :D

[joobz]

I would of like to seen the ACLU mess with Leif Ericson and his men.
sending teams of lawyers against war hardened vikings is the moral equivilent of feeding christians to the lions. It's interesting that you'd like to see that kind of thing.*



*in case you are wondering, I'm stating that you are morally bankrupt.

[Morrigan]

:newlol

...Wait, feeding christians t