dshimel

Over the weekend, I saw a History Channel rerun of a program called Barbarians. This episode was about the Vikings.

It described how the Vikings started out as villages, then when resources ran low, they started raiding each other, then a couple villages pooled their resources and started raiding Britian and France.....

After a couple hundred years, the viking tribes were rich and powerful, but still lacked a central government. Many leaders tried to "take over" and create a central government, but they all failed. Without a strong central religion upon to base "divine right", the people were uncontrollable.

So, the History Channel program goes on to say that some of the tribal leaders introduced Christianity to the Vikings for the purpose of making the masses more controllable. They contrived some test about a guy jumping through a fire to prove Christianity..... Then they activly worked to spread the religion. Not because it was correct, but because they wanted the people to be obedient sheep.

As an Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist, Materialist, ist , ist , ist, this seemed to make perfect sense. However, I tried to put myself in the position of being Christian. How would I feel if a history lesson described leaders spreading Christianity simply because it turned the people into sheep?

How can that not shake your faith?

MachineGod

In the Christian mind, or one who believes in a one true God, mankind will use God as they see fit. But, to them, this is not evidence that disproves the likelihood of there being such a God.

The Christian faith (most of them I think), above all, fights with inner doubt on a daily basis. It is their faith, their belief, their undying and unconditional acceptance or desire to accept the idea of God that turns them from doubt when their faith is challenged. And is what sets them apart in the eyes of God. (If he indeed exists)

Their faith may shake a bit, but will be rebuilt stronger when they seek and find ideas of every sort to replenish it.
It is done the same way atheists who seek to find ideas to replenish their faith when shaken by logically philosophical debates.

How accurate is the information you were given. (Do you just take something and run with it?)
What was the faith of the writer, producer, and/or director of this documentary?
What was the scope or purpose of this documentary? (Was it to argue the very point you describe?)
How does a Viking and their misuse of Christianity disprove what is declares?
The Christian faith did not orignate from the Vikings, therefore why should it destroy ones faith in it based on the documentary you witnessed?

Just food for thought.

no_more_700_club

If true, than a Christian might take that to mean that Christianity is a civilizing force. That when the people stopped worshipping gods that rode around on eight-legged horses and started worshiping the True God (TM) that the world became a more stable better place. That's what happens when Christianity comes to town. It is a good thing for those that believe it and helps reaffirm, not shake, their faith.

capnkirk

There are more ties and precedents between Vikings, Xtians, and the adoption of Xtianity as a unification tool that you may not be aware of. To wit:

I have read more than one scholar that held that Constantintine I's adoption (i.e. his hollow "public" conversion) of Xtianity was motivated by similar political expediencies. Constantine needed a unifying element for Rome, and essentially had two choices: Xtianity or Mithraism. The legendary story of his vision of a cross in the sky before a decisive battle was the publicly celebrated portent used to validate his "public" conversion (and was no doubt invented for just such purpose). His public posture notwithstanding, he never stopped worshipping "the old gods" privately. He didn't actually "convert" until he was on his deathbead (which is well documented) because it was his understanding that he would only be held accountable by God for the sins he committed after his conversion, so he put genuine conversion off as long as possible. Though this inconvenient truth isn't advertised by Xtian scholars and theologians, It is well known in the scholarship of the history of Byzantine Empire, which Constantine I founded and whose capital city was Constantinople.

That the Viking's would similarly use Xtianity as a means to unite their homeland tribes should be considered likely. IIRC, the first Viking leaders to convert to Xtianity were in Kiev, and they did so after their first visit to Constantinople. You do realize that the white-skinned, blue-eyed, Russians are the descendants of Vikings that traveled down, then settled along the banks of the Volga, the Danube, and the Dneiper Rivers, and were the founders of the Russian Orthodox Church. They were also the ones who brought the Byzantine form of government to Russia. The title Tsar, or Czar and its significance as an absolute monarch were direct copies of Byzantium and its Emperor-Caesars.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

Pensee

Actually, I would suppose the opposite. In the Christian mind, God will use mankind as he sees fit. If that's what it took to get "the message" across, so be it. God used the Vikings for a high calling regardless of what their intentions were (i.e., to control the masses.)

Vinnie

Modern Christianity has many similarities to cultic type controlling practices. Many associate only with certain type of people, test everything by scripture, etc.

The problem with the former is closemindedness. You are never challenged or exposed to outside voices. Its alomost as if the God of truth is afraid of silly skepticism? The problem with the latter is that scripture is always assumed, it is never intellectually defended.

Problem is it can't be. I recently posed a Christian Challenge on Cygnus forums and Christian Forums.

http://www.after-hourz.net/christianchallenge.html

Most of the responses consisted of this is not possible. Christianity is a self-authenticating message, the worldly rational man cannot understand the spiritual ala a scripture cite an so on ad nuasea. There are no arguments.

Basically it is all blind fideism. Even my opponent Robertlw in our debate here stated it was impossible to demonstrate inspiration of the Bible. Christianity pretends to be intellectual but its "fact claims" are pure nonsense on intellectual grounds. Christians close their eyes, set up a non-demonstrable and "unfalsifiable" standard to argue from and "cut themselves from the world".

At least many liberal Christians claim to not view the creeds and Christian dogma as "propositions of facts". Unfortunately they still tend to view them as such and defend them as such.

Vinnie

mrmoderate

I must agree with Mohatna Ghandi's sentiments after doing some study on Jesus Christ. Keeping in mind that a Christian nation had just about enslaved Ghandi's people he said; "I love your Christ...I hate your Christianity."

So much of what goes by the term Christian is quite far from the teachings of Jesus the Christ.

As far as feeling controlled, it is just the opposite for me. I don't refrain from doing things that I think I want to do because of the fear that God will smite me, but rather am more free of material things and emotional desires because I am closer to God.

We have been created with the free will to choose as we please. Only social stigma, material greed and the disire to control others takes away our free will.

capnkirk

I think you have just proved MachineGod's point...by demonstrating the mindset necessary for a placebo to work. MachineGod has described what the Xtian mind is doing, and you have described what it "thinks" it's doing.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.