Norse Mythology (2 of 12)

[kitkatboi888]

i will show you what a good time is ill screw you too! sexy boy!

[Iron14Hammer]

Conquering armys came to Scandinavia they just didn't conquer, Olaf the Traitor forced Christianity with the threat of death so yes Scandinavia was taken by force from Christianity no where did Snorri state the gods were real people doing what the myths say but thought the "gods" were people that was glorified into godhood By orate passing of legends. Dude you butcher facts like a democrat.

[malakhhatzadik]

@Iron14Hammer You have completely ignored the argument. Olaf was Norwegian, a son of Norwegian kings. His capital was Trondheim... how on Earth do you infer from history that ANY PART of Scandinavia was ever converted from paganism by anyone other than Scandinavians? I'm guessing you're confused because you didn't listen. Look at the comment below this one and how I have already answered that. Imagine how I feel, having to talk down to people over and over. Do you want to be treated that way?

[Iron14Hammer]

@malakhhatzadik You speak of norse mythology and Snorri who is Icelandic and state that it is all bullshit. Olaf was the King of Norway yes and the surrounding area that is why Leif Eriksson had to get permission to search new lands "Vinland now America" and he was a Greenlander so Olafs Reign was over more than just Norway, The main truth is if you talked down to me in person you would talk with a wired jaw. This is not a threat so dont take it that way.

[malakhhatzadik]

@Iron14Hammer I state that it's all bullshit? Wow you clearly haven't paid attention to any of it. No surprise there. Typical troll. There's one born every minute. Assuming you're even half Nordic, you idiots make the rest of us look bad. Have a nice life. *blocked*

PS I spent six years in the USMC putting bullies like you in their place. As if you'd fare any better...

[BlipBaat]

2 get him Kristen

[malakhhatzadik]

I've read Saxo, obviously. Why else would I be referencing him? I've already explained in both the videos and the comments that it was not FOREIGNERS who spread Christianity in Scandinavia, it was the KINGS of the Scandinavian nations. Apparently you missed that. Apparently you have an irrational bias which prevents you from listening and which makes you cling to the absurdities of your hate-mongering paradigm. Typical.

[BlipBaat]

cant remember his name, but this viking was forced to eat a poisen snake whit hot iron, and hi die, that a fakt

[Iron14Hammer]

@BlipBaat Raud the strong by Olaf the traitor for refusing to give his land to the church

[hartejoseph]

I agree that the christians preserved the mythology if it was not for the early Irish christians we would not know celtic mythology as well.

[EternityLasts333]

You're going off on tangents that have little to do with what we were initially discussing.

Point is : there is significant amount of evidence that says that Christians (regardless of what religion they were previously) forced the Viking Heathens into Christianity.

There have been many people who have dedicated half their lives or more to discovering as much as they can about the Vikings, and they came to this conclusion.

Just because you do not agree, does not make it true.

[malakhhatzadik]

The fact that what you say is false (as I've clearly explained despite your notion of "going off on tangents") makes it not true. On the other hand, just because you don't understand doesn't mean my argument is invalid. It just means you're stupid.

[Iron14Hammer]

@malakhhatzadik but I do now see you are self righteous and there is no point in arguing with some one who thinks themselves more intellectual than others when they are mearly book smart and have no intellect to formulate a thought out side the box and lacking imagination the key to joy in life. So enjoy your monotone dull lifeless existence.:)

[malakhhatzadik]

@Iron14Hammer Once again ad hominem insults are supposed to take the place of sound reasoning, and nobody is fooled except the fool.

[malakhhatzadik]

@Iron14Hammer I'm guessing Asatru.

[malakhhatzadik]

"there is significant amount of evidence that says that Christians"... I asked you to provide ONE valid example, and you failed to put up. Simply making vague, oblique references to allegedly reputable sources without even citing them (I don't blame you for that seeing as how I shot down the one reference you provided) doesn't substantiate your claim in any way.

[EternityLasts333]

"Vikings became Christians by their own free will"

You're kidding, right? I've heard all over that many vikings were forced to convert. A book I'm reading now says, "Denmark was officially converted in the mid 10th century, and Norway (etc, etc) all became Christian-- often at the point of a sword."

That's just the most recent thing I've read.

-the Vikings, by R. Chartrand, K Durham, M Harrison, I Heath

[malakhhatzadik]

The point of WHOSE sword? Who were these mysterious invaders of Scandinavia who forced the Vikings to convert against their will and the will of their elected monarchs, and at the zenith of their power no less? Correct me if I'm wrong but the only mention in that book of an externally imposed obligation to convert was after the Battle of Edington, which I THOROUGHLY dispute, seeing as how Wessex was on the defensive and was the only kingdom in all of England which the Vikings didn't conquer.

[EternityLasts333]

Who ever said they that it was solely external powers that made the conversions? An example: Olaf Tryggvason, a converted king was often known to convert his men by force. Also, he converted because of the prophecy of a Seer, not because he thought Christianity sounded good or right.

Just a note: just because you do not agree with history, does not make you right.

Also note: Sweden, for example, was not converted, until the 12th cent., well after the Vikings zenith.

[malakhhatzadik]

If you are not arguing "that it was solely external powers that made the conversions" then you are arguing a moot point, and just trying to be argumentative without realizing that you haven't contradicted me, only yourself. Either Olaf was not a Viking, or the decision to convert was made by the Vikings.

I find your belligerence unwarranted and your notion that I do not agree with history absurd. I also find your notion that no Swede ever converted before the 12th century equally absurd.

[malakhhatzadik]

Anyway you dodged the question. If a Norse king made the decision then the decision was not made by an exterior power, just as I said in the video. So who were these people that came to Norse lands and converted people by the sword? And since you want to invoke history, I would also remind you that the Rus who were at their zenith in the 10th century when they converted were Swedes, and that the Swedes in Sweden had their zenith in the 12th, not during the Viking zenith...go figure.

[malakhhatzadik]

PS Just for clarification re: the issue of Sweden, since I'm assuming you will misinterpret otherwise... either the king represents the will of the people, or he doesn't. On the one hand you imply that he doesn't if he's forcing people to convert, and then on the other you imply that he does if the official conversion of the nation is all that counts. Hence my "no Swede" remark.

[Martin20Wiberg]

Scandinavians have never fallen for the christian beliefs....Ansgar where not able to win the battle!

[malakhhatzadik]

You're kidding, right? I have read 6 books on the subject in the last 4 days, and every one of them says that the Vikings converted to Roman Catholicism and/or Orthodox Christianity in EVERY nation they settled and/or conquered without even a hint of outside pressure.

[odin422]

6 books 4 days......

[Onuund]

No one came to Scandinavia and said you're going to be Christian now. They did I believe. Im pretty sure there were some wars also.

[malakhhatzadik]

Care to explain? "Im pretty sure" isn't a valid argument when the facts are stacked up against you.

[Onuund]

I've read some where that christians invaded Norway and burned pagan temples and forced the people, who didn't willingly convert to christianity, by killing some as examples. I'm not 100% sure though.

[malakhhatzadik]

Well, you shouldn't believe everything you hear then. Norway was never invaded (that is... not ever... not even once) until the Germans attacked in 1940, and their goal certainly wasn't to convert the Norwegians to Christianity if you catch my drift. Even when Norway seceded from its union with Sweden in 1905 the Swedes let them go peacefully.

No, I'm afraid Norway was converted by missionaries during the 11th-12th centuries, and that the transition to Protestantism in 1536 was also peaceful.

[Onuund]

I clearly remember reading somewhere that Scandinavian pagans were "prosecuted" or killed by the English, or it might have been by King Olaf in or around 900-1000 AD. I obviously don't know but I always thought that. Where would I be able to futher my education on Norse mythology/ Scandinavian history? Every book I've ever read about the subject starts off with the first 40 pages as "Thorgrims son Thorvald's wife Ingrid. Her son Bjon who was married to Harold...Etc" It gets confusing.

[malakhhatzadik]

Now you're confusing both of us. Is it possible that the persecutions you're referring to happened in Scotland? No English army has ever set a hostile foot set in Scandinavia. Even still, the English have never forcefully converted people the way you've described.

Try finishing the videos. If that's not enough education on the subject then I might be able to recommend something else that's a bit more entertaining than the first 40 pages.

[Onuund]

Norway has invaded England. They never  retaliated?

[malakhhatzadik]

No, of course not. How could a pathetic nation like England ever invade Norway? The English have had enough trouble just with the French, who have lost every single war they've ever been involved in. Also, prior to the Norman (i.e. Norse) conquest of 1066-1087ish England was subject to the Danes.

[Onuund]

How are they a pathetic nation? They ( britian) Controlled africa and india.

[malakhhatzadik]

They DID, yes. I'm not disputing that Britain hasn't been the most powerful nation in the world for the last 400 years or so (after Germany and the US which is a satellite of the UK). What I'm disputing is whether taking muskets and cannons to foreign lands and conquering people who haven't even invented the wheel yet is pathetic. Vikings never did that. They fought each other because they appreciated a challenge in face-to-face hand-to-hand combat.

[Onuund]

So you don't think that if a land to the south of norway had an abundance of gold but the people there had very primitive weapons that the Vikings wouldn't have raided them?

Hope i'm not comming off as an asshole.

[malakhhatzadik]

No, you seem like a nice guy. :-)

I think that the lands south of Norway were pillaged and plundered quite often, but that's a moot point since they were populated by Danes and Saxons and other people who could at least put up a fight. For the Norse, battle was more about glory than it was riches. To them it was better to die and be taken to Valhalla than to slaughter defenseless people and live. The concept of a "fair fight" comes from the Norse mentality.

[Onuund]

What about the attacks on Lindisfarne? That was by no means a fair and equal fight. Also totaly unrelated to that, are you Norwegian?

[malakhhatzadik]

No. I'm a Swedish/Prussian-American. The point I was trying to make is that the vikings RAIDED people who were more like them (in small numbers) rather than INVADED weaker nations. Lindisfarne is no exception. Contrary to popular belief the attackers probably did not come from Norway. According to Alcuin the Anglo-Saxons brought it upon themselves because of their immorality, and they were told to "stand manfully, fight bravely, defend" Lindisfarne. lindisfarne(dot)org(dot)uk/793­/index(dot)h t m

[fitledge101]

why is England pathetic? I find that quite offensive. I also disagree.

[malakhhatzadik]

Instead of being offended and stating that you disagree, perhaps you should either explain WHY or not ask me to explain. All you're really doing is telling me that you are disagreeable and easily offended, in which case I would say "grow some balls and educate yourself."

England is pathetic because it's the most brainwashed, most enslaved, unhappiest nation in the world, and unlike other nations which have had similar problems forcefully imposed on them, has brought its situation upon itself.

[fitledge101]

I would not say being offended by someone calling the country you have lived in all your life and all your family is from pathetic is unreasonable.

Yes we may be brainwashed, yes we may be 'enslaved' but the people of England are victims, and we were picked on by the illuminati as a way to spread their global dominance. But either way you look at it the achievements of England/Britain are in no way pathetic. Are you blaming the state of our country on the populace? Is that really fair?

[malakhhatzadik]

The "achievements" of Great Britain? That's exactly the problem with this world. It was the UK that brought us all mass deprivations and industrialization. Your having lived there your whole life hasn't done much but give you a very ethnocentric and rather grandiose view of the world. If you want to know how pathetic your nation is, look at how many British students can't find the UK on a world map. I'm not blaming the victims, but victims are always pathetic. That is the nature of pathos.

[fitledge101]

this is from comment above:

Well whether you intended to inflame or not it was still a comment that had that effect, and you surely must have realised that it could do.

At the end of the day, most people take what they see as the truth, they don't always ask the questions they should. But it does not mean they are bad people. They are victims. Do you not accept that?

[malakhhatzadik]

I don't care how people interpret things based on their limited understanding. I always tell it like it is. My channel is for people who are concerned with TRUTH (those who DO ask the questions they should). If you want a group therapy session you're more than welcome to seek it elsewhere.

I accept your notions of victimization as being valid and veracious. I have not said that Brits are "bad people," only that the UK is pathetic, i.e. worthy of pity/sympathy, just like any other victim.

[fitledge101]

I think the meaning you are applying to 'pathetic' has somewhat changed since you first used it on these comments. I do not object to the usage you have just stated, as I think it is accurate, but in your previous comments you use it amongst attacks on England such as how we went around conquering people who haven't invented the wheel etc. It being used to attack England and its achievements as a country. For example how we cannot defeat France who have lost every war they were in.

[malakhhatzadik]

"I think the meaning you are applying to 'pathetic' has somewhat changed"

I think you're wrong. I regard a nation which has the WILL to fight (evidenced by British colonization of now Third World countries) combined with the lack of prowess (evidenced by the failure to conquer France) as pathetic. However, that is circumstantial. To your nation's credit, very few countries can boast such a spectacular history of warfare as your owning of France in the Middle Ages.

[malakhhatzadik]

I would also point out that the reason there is such a disparaging difference between the Africans with sticks and the Redcoats with rifles is European ingenuity, of which England has always been at the forefront as far as war is concerned. So don't think that I mean to say that Britain hasn't earned its place in hegemonizing the world... only that industrialization and capitalism are inherently evil and exploitative.

[fitledge101]

I accept many of your points, interesting discussion.

[fitledge101]

You seem proud of your heritage, but I think you are being biased. I also think there are more important things to be done than argue over which country has the most glorious military history.

The English/British are great people with many achievements, like most nations. Do not confuse the actions of an illuminati controlled/influenced government with the intent or actions of the entire population.

[fitledge101]

If the vast majority of people knew and believed the 'truth' this country would have a revolution in days. I doubt you have been here or lived here . When I talk of England I talk of the vast majority of people and not the ones who are corrupted. I don't agree with insulting an entire country.

In summary I disagree with you because the vast majority of English people are kind and righteous. Yes they may have been brainwashed but the adds are stacked against them from before they are born.

[malakhhatzadik]

"I don't agree with insulting an entire country."

It's not an insult. "Insult" denotes intent to inflame. It is a casual observation. There again you're just proving that you have a victim mentality. By all means blame your overlords for having coerced you into slavery, but you've got no one to blame but yourselves for choosing not to get out of it. You've already demonstrated how easy it would be.

One more thing: maybe they're kind, but righteousness necessitates not serving Mammon...

[fitledge101]

How can you get out of it if you don't know about it? It's not like everyone knows they just can't be bothered to do anything.

I take it by 'serving Mammon' you mean paying income tax etc. and basicly being a sheep. Well even if its not righteous to serve Mammon then they are still righteous in their intent, which is surely what is most important when the chips are down.

[malakhhatzadik]

"their intent...is most important"

Agreed. YHWH judges the heart. However, serving Mammon is a CHOICE. Their intent is not to be righteous, but to be COMFORTABLE. No one ever said being righteous was EASY, but hardship does not excuse unrighteousness. There are very people in this world who are truly wicked, and even fewer who are truly righteous. The rest are sheep.

[fitledge101]

I agree with most of this except 'serving Mammon is a CHOICE'. Maybe it is, but it is not a concious choice for the vast majority who know nothing of this esoteric knowledge and have no reason in their day to day lives to go and study it. I am not defending this though, I am just saying it can be hard to wake up.

[malakhhatzadik]

And I'm saying that the only thing preventing someone from "waking up" (actually, taking action) is his/her own lack of courage/faith. As Yahshuah said, "If you had the faith of a mustard seed you could say to this government, be removed and thrown into the abyss, and it would be so." It's that simple. What could be easier??? Most people are sheep because it's easier to live in fear when compliance guarantees survival, not because it's hard to free themselves. It's not. Not at all.

[malakhhatzadik]

"How can you get out of it if you don't know about it?"

It's called "faith." They know. Everyone knows. In Britain, for example, the Bible has been in continuous print for 400 years. It's just that few have the courage to admit that they and the institutions to which they have declared their fealty are a part of the agenda, or to live according to that knowledge. Clearly the answer to your question is that they need to be educated, to read the book(s) they have been given.

[fitledge101]

Before I begin to discover such things as the Illuminati etc, I was a sheep. I didn't believe in any god, I thought we were just intelligent animals and when we die that is it you rot. I thought this life is therefore the only important thing to consider. That is the average mindset of 'sheeple' it is not easy to break out of that alone, you need others help to do it. So I don't think 'everyone knows'.

[malakhhatzadik]

After many years spent pondering philosophical issues such as this, I disagree. As Plato said, nature herself has instilled the idea of God in men's minds. We are intelligent by nature, as you pointed out, and we all know the truth about things instinctively. Atheism and other widely-espoused idiotic notions come only by way of indoctrination. Someone who is not born a sheep will never be a sheep. A society of sheep is a society of non-thinkers, but knowledge is still within it consciousness.

[fitledge101]

My replies are not specific to the comment but to the discussion.

I am no expert on British history, but our expansion was due to competition with other European powers, we did not go out to bring the world into suffering and deprivation. I ask you to look at the bigger picture, and respect England and it's people.

Being a victim is not always a state of mind or a mentality.

[malakhhatzadik]

Looking at the bigger picture I respect England and its people, and I fully agree that a victim is only a victim after he/she has been victimized. However, until you at least take the time to learn your own history I'm not going to think you have any justification for denying that you as a whole are a pathetic race. You may not think you're out to bring suffering and deprivation to the world, but tell that to any Irishman if you want a different perspective.

[fitledge101]

This is the use of pathetic I mean.

The French are a powerful nation. They did not lose WW1 or WW2. They sat on the victor's side when the Treaty of Versailles was made. They being invaded was only because of their close proximity to the powerful Nazi war machine. I do not thinking using the common and unfair misconception that the French are somehow as a people bad at war, are the good war genes absent in the whole French population? Or is their a more accurate and fair approach?

[malakhhatzadik]

France suffered more casualties relative to its population than any other great power in WWI. By the end of the war Germany had captured more than 40% of the nation's coal and 58% of its steel output, whereas no French soldier EVER set foot in Germany without the Germans' permission. In no sense whatsoever OTHER than according to the Treaty of Versailles did Germany not decisively conquer France in WWI. In WWII France capitulated on June 25, 1940, barely 9 months after declaring war on Germany.

[malakhhatzadik]

And anyway you're missing the point. France has a long history of declaring war and then surrendering. In both cases in question (as well as when the Prussians kicked Napoleon's arse) it was France that declared war on Germany, and France that was the first to surrender even when British and American troops were still fighting in France. They lost in Algeria, they lost in Indochina, they lost in Russia...they lose EVERY war they start. That's not an exaggeration. They even lost to the Normans.

[fitledge101]

England at the height of its power could have invaded Scandinavia if they had wished to. But I believe relations between these nations in Northern Europe have been for many years, partly due to very similar origins. Either way even though you claim and enjoy your Swedish heritage, I think some of your views are biased.

[fitledge101]

*have been good* typo

[malakhhatzadik]

Yes, my views are biased. I could just as easily say that my ancestors came here from England when they settled the Plymouth Bay colony. However, I choose to relate to my Scandinavian heritage. If the origins of the English race were very far removed from their Germanic and Scandinavian origins then I would include a mention of the Anglo-Saxon in me, but I don't feel that it's necessary.

I'd like to take this discussion offline, but first let me point out that France DID lose the World Wars.

[malakhhatzadik]

umm... Maybe you didn't know, but England at the height of its power was under Danish rule.

[malakhhatzadik]

As I've discussed below, Olaf was already a king of Norway when he converted the nation, not a foreign aggressor. I would also point out that it is even more unlikely that such a conversion ever happened in Scotland, since Olaf forced Christianity on the Orkneys. But I misspoke when I said Norway was never invaded... Olaf supposedly had a son and pretender named Tryggvi that led a group of vikings into Norway in 1033... but even that was after the conversion to Christianity.

[ShadowSeax]

hmmm no germanic land had become christian by own will.

They Kings had convert(Olaf Norway) or there were conquered(example the Saxons by Charlemagne)... the Icelandic decided to "convert" to have good realation to Norway(but they where pagans for the next hundred years - some until today)

So Snorri Sturlusson wasn´t a christian, he was a pagan priest and a bard who hide Mythologie as Poems.

Paganism had never realy die. It had live on in Iceland and in their ancient customs

[malakhhatzadik]

Weren't the Franks (like Charlemagne) Germanic? haha ... And doesn't a king represent the will of the land he governs?

Snorri inherited his land from his uncle Magnus Palsson who happened to have been a priest. When he arrived to take possession in 1206 he became the "church chieftain," which is the only reason he ever became the lawspeaker or even wealthy/powerful enough to focus on writing the eddas. He was heavily involved in spreading Christianity throughout Norse lands.

[ShadowSeax]

Yeah the Franks self were germanics....

Yes a King represent his land but not the people(so he must not, but he can represent the people of the land ) of the land.

Hmm... you know Snorri was a christian... just like the other icelandic christians in this time which pray to heathen gods...

He wrote the Edda as teaching book for heathen/ heathenpriests and hide this as Poems...... at least I and some other people think so.

[malakhhatzadik]

I agree with your assertions about Iceland... that is obvious... but the reasons for a society's gradual evolution have no bearing on the nature of the choices themselves. The fact is they all DID choose Christianity whether for economic-political or religious reasons. What you fail to understand is that Germanic ≠ Norse, so when I say that no NORSE culture was ever conquered in the name of religion I'm not talking about Charlemagne. These videos are about NORSE i.e. Scandinavian mythology.

[ShadowSeax]

Ok You are right with this.

[foreverago02]

so why is your name what it is? Also on your other videos you claim the white race is the "most powerful race"? Why do you think they are? Is it because of their intelligence? because Asians are proven more intelligent and they also have larger brains. Brains actually get larger as you move to the west towards Asia as a brachycephalic brain is bigger and more efficient than a dolichocephalic brain which is common among Nordics and Africans. Im German with a brachycephalic so am I nordic?

[malakhhatzadik]

When did I call "the white race" the "most powerful race"? I have never referred to a white race. There is no such thing, and I would never say that there was. Also I'm fully aware of the fact that Asians are (on average) more intelligent than Europeans. So? If Germany went to war with Pakistan, who do you think would win? Anyway intelligence (mind) is not contained in the brain (matter), bigger is not better, and efficiency is determined by neuropathways, not genetics. But that is all moot.

[foreverago02]

yes I agree. It is important to preserve races and cultures, diversity and variety were created for a reason and they should be preserved.

[malakhhatzadik]

What was your question about my name? It has a meaning in ancient Hebrew. The Nordic races (minus the Finns and Lapps) are descended from an ancient Hebrew race called Israel. The Danes = Dan (one of the tribes of Israel). My name refers to the Zadokite tradition which goes back to King David (c. 1000 BC), who was one of my red-haired ancestors, for whom God established an everlasting kingdom on this planet.

[malakhhatzadik]

I take that back. I have referred to a "white race" in my Save the Blondes video, but it was in the context of delineating between the different white races.

[foreverago02]

I understand. I take back all the crap I said. I have self-esteem issues like the rest of the world:) I believe that thinking a race is superior to the other is just seperating ourselves, because we are souls in bodies not bodies with souls, or at least I believe. Thinking I am superior to anyone in any way I am creating a bigger ego and egos seperate us. Some races are better at some things than others but we are all essentially equal. Keep up the good work! Keep looking into things! Peace!

[malakhhatzadik]

Thanks. Although I agree that forced division and racial supremacism are not good, I think that God's way (variety, diversity as opposed to uniformity) is the best, and this necessitates the preservation of the races and their cultures in so far as they are in conformity with the universal ethos (love, temperance, etc.). Nature didn't make us equal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect each other's natural rights. We all have something worthwhile to contribute. Peace to you as well.

[TheConquerMentality]

Charlemagne, gradson of Charles, 'The Hammer' Martel forcefully converted Anglo-Saxons. The 4,500 Anglo-Saxsons who refused to accept the new 'Son Religion' were BEHEADED - all at the River Weser, where the others converted [READ: HAD BAPTISM INFLICTED].

Charlemagne was also responsible for the cutting down of the Sacred Oak of the Saxons -the Irminsul, which was an oak venerated by these people.

Christianity is NOT the friend of Germanic Paganism as you suggest.

You sir, are wrong.

[malakhhatzadik]

You need to differentiate between the Christianity of the Bible and the "Christianity" of the masses before you go on telling me that I'm wrong. Which is why I've stated at the beginning of this series that it won't make much sense to you if you are coming at it without a clear understanding, such as I've provided in the previous 76 videos. That, and I have also spoken only of the Norse religion and the Nordic culture of Scandinavia, which does not include the Saxons of Germany.

[TheConquerMentality]

1- Anglo-Saxon culture ie. language, religion was very similar to their Germanic cousins in the North

2- The 'Christianity' I speak of in the above passage was in 8th Century [Charlemagne] & would have obviusly been Roman [Latin]. There are many references where the Pope is on record that the Christian missionaries were to 'destroy the idols but continue worshipping in the old temples'.

[malakhhatzadik]

Being that you have made a clear distinction between the scripture-based golden rule/ thou shalt not kill Christianity and the Pope's/ Charlemagne's Babylonian conquer-the-world-in-the-name-­of-Mithras Babylonian mystery rites sun-worship system, I hardly think that you can associate anything that I've said or implied with the latter. My opinion of the Roman religion is probably no different from yours. The Christians of N Europe were actually ARIANS... people whom Rome persecuted severely.

[malakhhatzadik]

If you want to demonstrate how I'm allegedly wrong then you'll have to demonstrate how the NORSE were forcefully converted to any of the several forms of Christianity rather than electing it for themselves, or perhaps only reluctantly at the behest of their own sovereign. I think you'll find this exceedingly difficult even in an extreme case. Even as late as the Reformation the quasi-German duchy of Prussia became the first Protestant state in defiance of the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire.

[TheConquerMentality]

3a- The introduction of Christianity is also believed to have played a role in the decline of Viking society. Some Vikings converted voluntarily, while others were forced to convert by Christian fanatics, with the choice of conversion or torture & ultimate death.

[TheConquerMentality]

3b- The spread of Christianity across the regions that the Vikings had colonized destabilized their culture, forcing them to flee further & further North, but they left behind an indelible stamp in the form of a genetic, cultural, & linguistic legacy in many regions.

wisegeek(dot)com/who-were-the-­vikings(dot)htm

[TheConquerMentality]

4-King Harald Greyhide...a Christian, destroy[ed] pagan temples.

Olaf I...his priority to convert the country to Christianity using all means at his disposal. BY DESTROYING TEMPLES & TORTURING & KILLING PAGAN RESISTERS HE SUCCEEDED IN MAKING EVERY PART OF NORWAY AT LEAST NOMINALLY CHRISTIAN. Expanding his efforts to the Norse settlements...credit him with Christianizing the Faroes, Orkney, Shetland, Iceland & Greenland.

See: "Christianization of Scandinavia" [wikipedia]

[malakhhatzadik]

This still assumes that Vikings are defined by their beliefs and/or practices rather than their cultural or ethnic or even geographical origins ("wyking"). The difference is between Christians and Pagans. My point is that the Norse chose it for themselves, as opposed to having it forced on them externally, whether or not everyone liked the kings' edicts. If Olaf hadn't been Norse that would be a different story. And it wasn't just political expediency like in Charlemagne's or Constantine's case.

[sandman3698]

clovis the frank, Olaf the lawbreaker aka St. Olaf, and Charlemagne. just to name three

[sandman3698]

pagan actually means believer in country/folk religion.

[malakhhatzadik]

If you look up "paganus" in any Latin dictionary it should translate at "country dweller" or an equivalent. The Latin-speaking Christians adopted it as a direct translation of "goy" (gentile), and the corresponding "kafir" (infidel) of Arabic, since it basically meant non-Roman or non-Christian. Just because someone is a member of a certain ethnic group doesn't mean they practice that group's religion. I have a line of Norman ancestors whose post-Christian name was Pagnell (pagan).

[TheConquerMentality]

Amazing!

This summer I was able to trace my line back 600 years & learned that my surname 'Wyborn' originated in Norway, & in Old Norse 'Wyborn' means - "War Bear".

Perhaps we might even have a common ancestor.

May the Gods be with you my friend.