The Viking Leif Ericson was a Christian Evangelist

[chris epic]

***double post

 

[chris epic]

The Renaissance, or the enlightenment, or the bloody Scientific Revolution didn't do much to sway even the most reasonable thinkers of the time away from pseudo-science (alchemy, magic, and astronomy); racial superiority and inferiority, female inferiority, or Theism. Actually, the Scientific Revolution helped reinforce the notion that women were inferior, prone to vice, best meant for child rearing; and even propagated what is today the modern "Intelligent Design" argument.

But looking back on it now, it would be foolish to conclude that pseudo-science, magic, and God were valid just because scientists and rational thought continued to mingle with these ideas.

The same can be said with Leif. Just because he did Christian things or was associated with Christianity doesn't, by logic, validate Christianity. As anyone will tell, there were NUMEROUS important people in history that were Christian, but that didn't stop them from doing terrible things, and that also shouldn't have any baring on the validity of a religion or a God.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, In fact it is possible his Christianity gave him the courage (knowing God was with him) and even the inspiration to make the dangerous mission into unknown territory.

Because clearly the pre-Christian pagan vikings didn't have the balls to travel very far.

 

[gypsey]

from one of my native study sites

http://www.dickshovel.com/jank.html

Through millennia, most of mankind has had an obsession with labels - a need to classify things in some orderly system to better understand them. When Scandinavian explorers first arrived in North America in A.D. 1001, they called their new world Vinland. The short-lived colony that Lief Ericsson established in Newfoundland was on the northern part of the island at what is now called L'Anse aux Meadows. The sea-faring Scandinavians encountered a peculiar group of people inhabiting Newfoundland when they arrived. They called the residents of this new world skraelings, a word roughly translated as "barbarians, weaklings, or even pygmies." Although it is still not certain, these early inhabitants of Newfoundland were probably Eskimos (Thornton 1987:12). Scandinavian peoples did not persist in attempts at colonization; consequently, white Euro-American children of the twentieth century did not grow up playing "cowboys and skraelings," and there have never been wooden cigar store skraelings greeting patrons at the local general store.

also just for doc

Few written records exist concerning European explorations to the New World after the Scandinavian visits of the eleventh century until after 1492 when Christopher Columbus accidentally sailed into the Caribbean region of the Western Hemisphere. Failing to convince the Portuguese to finance his quest for a westward route to Asia, the Italian mariner sought the aid of the Spanish royalty. The Catholic monarchy of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella ultimately financed Columbus's visionary voyage by providing him with three ships. On October 12, 1492, Columbus and his crew visited the Arawak people of the island of Guanahani, in the Caribbean Greater Antilles. He thought he was off the coast of Asia. Columbus named the people he encountered los indios, which at the time meant people of a darker race. He renamed their island San Salvador. Columbus made four expeditions to the Caribbean and founded the settlement of Isabella on the island of Hispaniola. He never made it to the continent of North America although his men did land on the South American coast of what is now Venezuela (Thornton 1987:12).

Columbus wrote about how generous and loving the Arawak people were and how easy their conversion to Christianity would be. The quest for more converts to Christianity was of great interest to the Spanish monarchy, for there is great strength in numbers. The conversion process began immediately, and it was only a short time before enslavement practices followed. Columbus captured great numbers of native people and transported them to Spain and other islands desirous of slave labor. Cruel treatment and foreign diseases all but annihilated the Arawak people. Columbus was arrested for his abusive treatment of the Arawaks, taken back to Spain in chains, and stripped of his colonial office. He was later released and once more allowed to sail, provided he never set foot on Hispaniola again (Chalk 1990:179).

seems Leif was the more humane of the 2 before he got infected with christianity

 

[shadron]

We shouldn't say that no renaissance was on the horizon. The 12th-century Renaissance was just around the corner. For that matter (since you bring up Charlemagne), the Carolingian Renaissance hadn't occurred that long ago.

You're being a bit disingenuous here, I think. In the 12th century rennaissance article, the earliest substantive act mentioned was in 1158, 150 years in the future. The article on the carolingians reads:

The Carolingian Renaissance was a period of intellectual and cultural revival occurring in the late eighth and ninth centuries, with the peak of the activities occurring during the reigns of the Carolingian rulers Charlemagne and Louis the Pious.

That's, at best, 100 years before Lief, in an era of near zero literacy; Pepin's court must have sounded like a fairy tale, if it was heard at all. The Vikings happened in about the deepest part of the "dark ages" that there was. The only action was elsewhere, where the Eastern orthodox were schisming, the Pope was starting to think Crusade, and the Normans were thrashing the Saxons.

 

[DOC]

...Columbus was arrested for his abusive treatment of the Arawaks, taken back to Spain in chains, and stripped of his colonial office. He was later released and once more allowed to sail, provided he never set foot on Hispaniola again (Chalk 1990:179)

Maybe the fact that when Columbus returned to the site of his first voyage (on his second voyage) and found all 31 or so of the men he had left behind slaughtered it might of did a number on his psyche.

Columbus was no angel but if he had been an angel he might have turned back during his 1st voyage when his men threatened mutiny if he didn't turn back just 3 days short of discovering America.

Also Columbus hung several of his own men for disobedience so he didn't play favorites.

 

[I Ratant]

Because clearly the pre-Christian pagan vikings didn't have the balls to travel very far.

.
Crossing large bodies of water --- and getting back at all --- takes more than cajones... A compass is a really nice thing to have.
Vikings didn't have those.
Neither did anyone else.
Staying close to the visible shore line restricts your travel to contiguous lands.
If your celestial navigation skills lead you out of sight of land, and can be depended on to get you back, then, you can cross large bodies of water.
The implication that the New World was destined to be Christian from the git-go, though, that's silly.
The Pilgrims were so far out of touch with the normal intolerant Christian religion of Europe they were tossed out on their keisters by the very tolerant Dutch.
Their legacy isn't anything to be proud of.
Mullah Omar would approve of many of their practices re religious intolerance.

 

[arthwollipot]

Crossing large bodies of water --- and getting back at all --- takes more than cajones... A compass is a really nice thing to have.
Vikings didn't have those.

Yes they did.

 

[hgc]

Well all of this doesn't have much to do with Leif Ericson but since someone brought up astrology we shouldn't be too rough on Gregory XIII since he did reform the incorrect Julian Calender.
...

Or, you could take the theologically correct view of the situation: the Gregorian calendar is Satan's way of counting the days until the damnation and enslavement of all God's creation.

I mean, really. If you go around forgiving unrighteous backsliders due to worldly accomplishments (vanity), you'd probably have to give that old atheist Darwin his due just for pointing out a bunch of dumb finches.

 

[I Ratant]

Yes they did.

.
Interesting.. but why only a single example of the second "compass"?
Navigating along lines of constant latitude makes sense.
Relatively easy to do.
From Norway, you can't sail east all that easily along 62 N.
The solution to the "problem of the longitude" was still centuries in the future.
Knowing where you are along the line of latitude would be quite a problem.

 

[arthwollipot]

.
Interesting.. but why only a single example of the second "compass"?
Navigating along lines of constant latitude makes sense.
Relatively easy to do.
From Norway, you can't sail east all that easily along 62 N.
The solution to the "problem of the longitude" was still centuries in the future.
Knowing where you are along the line of latitude would be quite a problem.

Yes, it would. But would sailing from Greenland to Newfoundland be all that much more difficult than sailing from Oslo to Constantinople?

 

[I Ratant]

Well, yeah.
It's just a buncha left turns from Oslo to Constantinople. Keep the shore line on the left, you go around Europe, thru the Straits, along Spain, Italy, Greece, and you're there. Never leave the sight of land. Continue along the coast back to the Straits, then it's right turns home.
Or, there's rivers across Europe, if you don't mind portaging a time or two.
I heard they did that also.
Even a caveman could do it!
West from Oslo, there's nothing for quite a few days until you see, with any luck at all Iceland.
Miss that, then Greenland after another long shoreline-less day or five or so.

 

[arthwollipot]

And after Greenland, another shorline-less day or three. If they could make it to Iceland (and they did) and they could make it to Greenland (and they did), why would it be too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that they made it to Newfoundland?

Hint: don't look on a map, look on a globe.

 

[I Ratant]

I have.

 

[arthwollipot]

So you can see that the distance from Norway to Iceland is greater than the distance from Iceland to Greenland, which is greater than the distance from Greenland to Newfoundland.

I think the greater feat is getting from Norway to Iceland. Especially given the legendary conditions in the North Atlantic. If they could get to Iceland, then the rest seems easy!

 

[DOC]

.The implication that the New World was destined to be Christian from the git-go, though, that's silly.

The Pilgrims were so far out of touch with the normal intolerant Christian religion of Europe they were tossed out on their keisters by the very tolerant Dutch.
Their legacy isn't anything to be proud of. Mullah Omar would approve of many of their practices re religious intolerance.

Wiki says nothing about them being tossed out, do you have a source?

Wiki gives these reasons for the Pilgrims leaving:

The Netherlands was, however, a land whose culture and language were strange and difficult for the English congregation to understand or learn. Their children were becoming more and more Dutch as the years passed by. The congregation came to believe that they faced eventual extinction if they remained there.

Decision to leave

By 1617, although the congregation was stable and relatively secure, there were ongoing issues that needed to be resolved...
Bradford noted that the congregation was aging, compounding the difficulties some had in supporting themselves. Some, having spent through their savings, gave up and returned to England. It was feared that more would follow and that the congregation would become unsustainable. The employment issues made it unattractive for others to come to Leiden, and younger members had begun leaving to find employment and adventure elsewhere. Also compelling was the possibility of missionary work, an opportunity that rarely arose in a Protestant stronghold.

Reasons for departure are suggested by Bradford, when he notes the "discouragements" of the hard life they had in the Netherlands, and the hope of attracting others by finding "a better, and easier place of living"; the "children" of the group being "drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses"; the "great hope, for the propagating and advancing the gospell of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"

Edward Winslow's list was similar. In addition to the economic worries and missionary possibilities, he stressed that it was important for the people to retain their English identity, culture and language. They also believed that the English Church in Leiden could do little to benefit the larger community there..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims

I've been monitoring DOC's threads for the last few months and there is pattern of behaviour that is not in the spirit of the Forum. I.e. DOC's threads fall off the front page of the section and he then bumps them by just regurgitating the same discredited opinions and information that have already been gone over literally dozens of times. Therefore I am closing this and the other threads.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat