The Viking Leif Ericson was a Christian Evangelist

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ryokan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

The Greenland's Story of the Icelandic Sagas
Click to expand...

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 (Sorry, don't have an English translation handy.)
 
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)
 
slingblade said:
History. Okay.


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

THANKS!
Click to expand...

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?
 
ClintonHammond said:
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)
Click to expand...

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!
 
ClintonHammond said:
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....
Click to expand...

Actually, that church would have been built in Greenland.
 
joobz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
It's a thread, not a forum.

And anyone are free to post here. You don't get to choose who posts here.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
Last edited:
Leif Roar said:
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 (Sorry, don't have an English translation handy.)
Click to expand...


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

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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.
 
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).



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

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.
 
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.



joobz said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88044

Kindly,
Joobz
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom