Posted on 11/18/2005 7:58:33 AM PST by Uncledave
Edited on 11/18/2005 6:57:43 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Here's a list of Roman emperors. Tiberus ruled at the time of the Crucifixion. Constantine did not arrive for another 300 years. Further his "conversion" was the result of a dream followed by a successful battle, not missionary activity. In no way did the early Christians seek out Roman emperors for conversion
> Have you ever read the Bible? . . . Yes. Relevance?
You don't seem to know the basics -- when it was written, the first converts etc.
>>Did the Christianization of Scandinavia go top-down or bottom up? >Bottom up. Nope, top down. King Olaf Tryggvasson slaughtered those who did not convert.
And what Christianity ended
>>Did or did not the fall of the Icelandic Republic as a going concern happen after the place was Christianized and the churches started collecting all the wealth? . . . The answer you're looking for is "yes."
Anyway, as noted the Icelandic Republic was Christian for almost 80 percent of its history, so it's pretty silly to say that Christianity was the the reason for its fall.
> People were tricked because they love martyrs? Well, people joined up with the Heaven's Gaters and lopped their nuts off, so...
So with all the new martyrs, how is Heaven's Gate doing now?
> Further his "conversion" was the result of a dream followed by a successful battle, not missionary activity.
Ah.... no. He knew of Christians, otherwise he woudl not ahve understood or have 3even *had* the dream he supposedly had.
> > Have you ever read the Bible? . . . Yes. Relevance?
> You don't seem to know the basics
Yes, I do. However, what the Bible says isn't actually relevant here. We're discussing history.
> The Life of Anskar
Interesting choice of links there to bolster your view that Christianity wasn't imposed, but chosen by the masses:
"The Emperor Charlemagne, who died on January 28, 84, had waged a series of seventeen campaigns extending over thirty-three years (772805) against the Saxons, his avowed object being to compel them to accept the Christian faith."
More than a few historians are of the view that Charlemagne was responsible for the Viking Era... by stomping into lands where the Norse/Teutonic gods were worshipped and slaughtering the worshippers, he initiated a response. And if this view is true, the Viking raids on Christian monestaries, rather than being acts of barbarism, were retaliatory strikes against an aggressive alien religion.
> And what Christianity ended
Yes, Christinity wiped out the Vikings. Also wiped out the light of "pagan" Greek scientific learning from Europe for nearly a thousand years, only rediscovered from the *Arabs.*
> So with all the new martyrs, how is Heaven's Gate doing now?
Well, they reached their chosen end-point. So I guess they're doing ok.
Of course, Buddhist monks have a tendency to live lives of poverty and non-violence and being persecuted, and sometimes set themselve son fire in protest of this or that, and Buddhism seems to have been rolling along just fine for rather a long time. Hell, Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism seem to stress that "life sucks," so by your arguement, the "only explanation" for the success of those religions is that they must be true.
You are giving me a second-grade playground argument -- that "early" Christians targeted emperors, and that after 300 years and lots of persecution, they found one who would accept it on the eve of battle. Does that really make sense to you?
Interesting choice of links there to bolster your view that Christianity wasn't imposed, but chosen by the masses:
Why would a king choose Christianity for cynical reasons if there were no support for it among his subjects?
Also wiped out the light of "pagan" Greek scientific learning from Europe for nearly a thousand years, only rediscovered from the *Arabs.*
Were do you get these ideas from? A different article from LewRockwell.com
> that "early" Christians targeted emperors, and that after 300 years and lots of persecution, they found one who would accept it on the eve of battle. Does that really make sense to you?
Far more so than weak arguements from incredulity regarding the "only explanation" for why Christianity was successful.
> Why would a king choose Christianity for cynical reasons if there were no support for it among his subjects?
Power. The existing religions did not provide much ability for kings to rule as the voice of the gods, except for the Roman god-emperors. But convert to a religion that has but one, all-powerful and really quite nasty god, you can scare the bejeebers out of people. Plus, if you see a growing power base for that religion surrounding you... well, hop on the bandwagon.
>>Also wiped out the light of "pagan" Greek scientific learning from Europe for nearly a thousand years, only rediscovered from the *Arabs.*
> Were do you get these ideas from? A different article from LewRockwell.com
This article neither supports your view nor counters mine. The scientific discoveries of the Greeks were largely lost in the west after Christianization, and had to be re-learned after readign Arabic translations of those works or re-doing the work in the Rennaissance, when the power of the church was beginnign to wane.
PHYSICS*
That's a pretty big exception you are trying to make. Anyway, Christianity does not provide any ability for kings to rule as "voice of the gods". Further, -- unlike shamanism -- it limits the ability of priests to intrepret the will of God due to a written code. Seeking signs is expressly forbidden.
Norse religion, OTOH, is and arbitrary and filled with superstition. Human sacrfice seems to have been common.
And, the Norse gods are pretty closely identified with totalitarianism.
Plus, if you see a growing power base for that religion surrounding you... well, hop on the bandwagon.
So, it was from the bottom up?
The scientific discoveries of the Greeks were largely lost in the west after Christianization,
They were lost after the fall of Rome, almost 500 years after the arrival of Christianity.
> Christianity does not provide any ability for kings to rule as "voice of the gods".
"Divine right of kings."
Look it up.
> Norse religion, OTOH, is and arbitrary and filled with superstition. Human sacrfice seems to have been common.
Yes, as with many other religions, like Christianity. Before you go all ballistic, imagine how burning a witch looks to non-Christians. Looks a hell of a lot like a human sacrifice.
> So, it was from the bottom up?
By Charlemagnes time? Nope. Top-down, by the link *you* yourself provided. Were it bottom-up, he'd hardly have to fight wars of aggression to force his neighbors to convert. Christianity was the religion of the rulers by this point... the "Old Ways" survived for centuries more among the peasant classes.
The divine right of kings was a perversion of Christianity. And still kings did not rule as a "voice of the gods." Further, it was not until the early modern era (17th Century) that the notion became extensively used as a primarily political mechanism, i.e. for increasing the power of kings within centralized monarchies
Yes, as with many other religions, like Christianity. Before you go all ballistic, imagine how burning a witch looks to non-Christians. Looks a hell of a lot like a human sacrifice.
Or an execution. I can tell you why human sacrifice is wrong. Can you tell me why witch burning is wrong?
So, it was from the bottom up? . . . By Charlemagnes time?
So where did the power-base come from?
> The divine right of kings was a perversion of Christianity.
That's nice. But it existed and was religiously accepted for a millenium and a half anyway.
> I can tell you why human sacrifice is wrong. Can you tell me why witch burning is wrong?
Because it's murder.
> So where did the power-base come from?
Same power base of any king.
I heartily recommend that you try to find a copy of "Christian History," Issue 63 (Vol. XVIII, No. 3) from 1999. The entire issue is devoted to "A Severe Salvation: How the Vikings took up the faith."
If you think the conversion of Scandinavia was a bottom-up phenomenon, you're in for a surprise. Much of the rest of Europe was the same... the king tells you what religion you are.
Actually, it's not according to the legal definition -- i.e. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought . . . and with no legal excuse or authority.
Now, one with Christian sensibilities will think it's wrong i.e. it's merciless; the old Norse legacy of trial by ordeal led to bearing false witness; it violated the Golden Rule; it was a judgemental, the casting of the first stone and unnecessary but those who don't believe in a divine good greater than the state can't call it murder.
I heartily recommend that you try to find a copy of "Christian History," Issue 63 (Vol. XVIII, No. 3) from 1999. The entire issue is devoted to "A Severe Salvation: How the Vikings took up the faith."
If you think the conversion of Scandinavia was a bottom-up phenomenon, you're in for a surprise.
What I'm saying is that it was not all command of the king or conversion by sword. There was envy good examples of unsung individuals; distorted examples of not so good individuals; and the inherent disatisfaction of a false religion and a pointless life.
There were many Scandinavians who believed before the kings issued the decrees, and many who didn't afterwards.
Anyway, it the conversion was very good for Scandinavia and very good for the world.
Consider King Olaf Trygvesson:
With his fleet now fortified to 94 ships, he came back to England and joined forces with the Danish king Svein Forkbeard. Together they raided England, "burning villages, laying waste the lands, putting numbers of people to death by fire and sword, without regard to sex, and sweeping off an immense booty." Seizing horses, they rode wildly through many provinces and slaughtered the whole population with savage cruelty, "sparing neither the women nor children of tender age."
This was before he became a Christian. The idea that Christianity somehow encouraged any tendancy he had towards violence is not reasonable.
> one with Christian sensibilities will think it's wrong ...
Too bad history does not bear that out.
> the conversion was very good for Scandinavia and very good for the world.
How so? As you point out, it provided no mitigating influence against murderers like the two Olafs.
> the old Norse legacy of trial by ordeal led to bearing false witness...
And claiming that the Norse were unaware of the law and jury trials is also bearing false witness. Much of our current system of laws comes from the old Norse/Germans, with a direct link back to the pre-Christian Saxon common law.
>> If you think the conversion of Scandinavia was a bottom-up phenomenon, you're in for a surprise.
> What I'm saying is that it was not all command of the king or conversion by sword.
Nobody said it was "all" by the sword. The simple fact is that it's fairly easy to convert polytheists... if someone already believes in a dozen gods, adding one more to the pot ain't that hard. Then it's not that far a jump to take that one new god and make him the only god and the other gods into minor deities or even evil demons.... *especially* when the king tells you to do it.
Once again... not exactly miraculous. The real miracle is that the old religion has survived Christianity and has a number of earnest adherants... and has managed to become officially recognized in Iceland. In fact, the old beliefs never were quite wiped out in the Scandinavian lands; even among the Christians of Iceland, respect for the elves (*not* the Keebler/Santa's little helper type of elves) continues to this day. Misteltoe, the names of the days of the week, the Yule Log and the Christmas Tree continue to make the old ways noticable even today.
After Christianity took hold, the raids stopped and the Age of the Vikings ended. And it probably did mitagate the Olafs. I'd be interested in the comparsion between the before and after death tolls.
And claiming that the Norse were unaware of the law and jury trials is also bearing false witness.
Nobody claimed that. You were referring to the persecution of women accused of witchcraft. Trial by Ordeal was how the determination was usually made.
Much of our current system of laws comes from the old Norse/Germans, with a direct link back to the pre-Christian Saxon common law.
There was much good in those laws, and much that wasn't.
Once again... not exactly miraculous.
Nobody's claiming it was in that regard. Conversion is a personal miracle, not a public one.
Evolutionists may challenge ID theory as not being developed through the scientific method, but I don't think you can present a single, solitary example of them attempting to prevent 'data' from being taught in a science class.
> After Christianity took hold, the raids stopped and the Age of the Vikings ended.
A pity, 'tis true. The now-wussified Scandinavia will probably roll over for dhimmitude. Their Viking ancestors would not have put up with that.
But since the raids were driven by Christian aggression in the first place, once they'd been forced to convert, it only makes sense that the raids would have stopped. Though I suspect Christianity would have benefitted from more people raiding monasteries and churches... places which Really Don't Need Bling.
> I'd be interested in the comparsion between the before and after death tolls.
So would I. Not available. I will note, however, that Christendom did not become a relatively decent place to be until the Rennaissance, which was driven in no small part from an economic resurgence after the Black Death and a consequent loss of faith in the Church.
Much of the Christian world was a thoroughly nasty place until the 1700's at the earliest. Conversion to Christianity does not seem to have aided people much. Technological improvements, however, did.
> You were referring to the persecution of women accused of witchcraft. Trial by Ordeal was how the determination was usually made.
Not by the Norse. Hell, the Norse distrusted witches, but paid for their services anyway. Since their services included medicine, that was all for the best.
>> Once again... not exactly miraculous.
>Nobody's claiming it was in that regard.
This arguement has gone back and forth so much I've lost track. Was it you who claimed that the only explanation for the conversion of so many to Christianity and its subsequent succes was due to it being miraculous/correct?
You mean the now non-Christian Scandinavians will roll over for dhimmitude :-)
But since the raids were driven by Christian aggression in the first place,
Your saying the raids started because of Charlemange's aggression. I don't agree with that. Why would the first attack have been made in England? It is my understanding that the raids began because of new technology -- namely the longboat, and the realization that there were soft targets.
places which Really Don't Need Bling.
I'm inclined to agree with that.
I will note, however, that Christendom did not become a relatively decent place to be until the Rennaissance,
Actually, it became a fairly decent place right after the Age of the Vikings ended -- common culture, easy trade, growing wealth -- and remain such until the Mongol invasions were followed by the Little Ice Age, the Black Death, and the rise of the Turks.
Much of the Christian world was a thoroughly nasty place until the 1700's at the earliest.
Much of the world was a thoroughly nasty place in the 1700s. Much of it is a thoroughly nasty place now. We are lucky to live in America.
Was it you who claimed that the only explanation for the conversion of so many to Christianity and its subsequent succes was due to it being miraculous/correct?
Not exactly. I was referring to the early Christian church when it had no earthly power, and the powers that be were unremittingly hostile to it.
> You mean the now non-Christian Scandinavians will roll over for dhimmitude :-)
No, the Scandinavian lands are still reasonably Christian, just sorta laid back about it. Pity their Viking blood was thinned by centuries with the White Christ...
> Your saying the raids started because of Charlemange's aggression.
Timing and choice of target seems to back that up.
> Why would the first attack have been made in England?
Because it was close. A better question: why were the first raids conducted against churches and monasteries, as opposed to other concentrations of wealth? Why the apparent anger at Christianity? As archaeology has shown, the Norse tolerated other religions with no difficulty whatsoever. This is not surprising for polytheists. You got your gods, I got mine, ain't no problem there. But when one particular religion begins to wipe out your people and your culture... you fight.
> It is my understanding that the raids began because of new technology -- namely the longboat...
The Scandinavians had had decent boat tech for quite a while, more than adequate for the job.
> Actually, it became a fairly decent place right after the Age of the Vikings ended -- common culture, easy trade, growing wealth
I disagree.
> Much of the world was a thoroughly nasty place in the 1700s. Much of it is a thoroughly nasty place now. We are lucky to live in America.
Yup. Three cheers for our pagan ancestors who gave us the rule of law and energetic capitalism! Huzzah!
> I was referring to the early Christian church when it had no earthly power, and the powers that be were unremittingly hostile to it.
Hardly. For a few decades, the Christians were largely ignored by the Roman empire as just another cult. Again, see to the Mormons and the Scientologists for examples of how much a religion can grow in just a few years. Plus, there was political genius in the basic idea of Christianity, whether it was true or not: people whose lives sucked, find out that a centuries old prophesy has come true, and it's just a matter of time until everythign will be just great. All ya gotta do is believe and wait a little bit... any day now... Again, as history has shown, such religious beliefs are remarkably successful at drawing adherants.
I don't see anything on there about the censorship of "data." Care to revise your comments? Or is there any support for them, at all?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.