Was Christianity worse than the Norse religions it replaced?

[repoman]

By what metrics could that even be tested?

One major difference I can see right away is that it bound the people who previously followed these religions (and the Norse religion is not the same kind of religion as Christianity, is religion even the right word for Norse myths and practices?) into the fold of Christians which deeply affected political allegiances.

Why should the Norse have given a flying fuck about having extra compassion for people in France? But if they were now both Christians^TM and there are Muslims^TM attacking then there is a "reason" to care.

Sort of like Malaysians caring extra about Muslims in Burma now - other than a basic humanitarian sense. Pathetic tribalism.

At any rate, other than inter tribal aspects and alliances was Christianity an upgrade or downgrade from Norse religion for the Norse people?

Was it bound to have all of these local religions subsumed into larger ones with growth of civilization and trade and migrations?

 

[Politesse]

I can't imagine a fair metric. Generally, people prefer and prosper from performing their own traditions whatever they happen to be, and it takes substantial political and economic shifts to make that change. In 80 BCE, it was a very comfortable and desirable position to be a mouthpiece of Valhalla and be buried wand in hand. In 880 CE, it was a much better idea to take up the monk's cowl and preside over the transmogrification of the Host. Nowadays, atheism and the mechanical, invisible authority of Science are popular among the academic elites, and all-around the wisest choice for the upwardly mobile. If American and interested in politics, throw a quietly cynical veneer of ancestral Puritanism (being never too specific about theology) on top. Those who take a serious interest in religion or philosophy are rare in any generation, and frankly tend to get along with one another better than with others in their own society.

I note that many of the ideas, customs, and holidays of the Northern tradition were neatly folded into the Christian milieu when said realities began to shift. Most English-speaking Christians have no idea that Hell and Easter are syncretic half-borrowings. So one can't even really differentiate them entirely. Even in the late Roman days, there were plenty of wealthy barbarians-turned-citizens in the capital, and something of a high society fetish for their perceivedly wild ways and potent, exotic magics.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I guess it would have integrated them more into the broader European culture and given trade advantages and the like. It happened at the tail end of all the various jarls integrating into a smaller number of kings, so all the raids and internal warfare was toning down anyways but it gave one less reason for Village A to go and rape and pillage their way through Village B.

Probably ended up being more of a net positive after everything's considered.

 

[Underseer]

By what metrics could that even be tested?

One major difference I can see right away is that it bound the people who previously followed these religions (and the Norse religion is not the same kind of religion as Christianity, is religion even the right word for Norse myths and practices?) into the fold of Christians which deeply affected political allegiances.

Why should the Norse have given a flying fuck about having extra compassion for people in France? But if they were now both Christians^TM and there are Muslims^TM attacking then there is a "reason" to care.

Sort of like Malaysians caring extra about Muslims in Burma now - other than a basic humanitarian sense. Pathetic tribalism.

At any rate, other than inter tribal aspects and alliances was Christianity an upgrade or downgrade from Norse religion for the Norse people?

Was it bound to have all of these local religions subsumed into larger ones with growth of civilization and trade and migrations?

How can we possibly make that comparison given that Christians wiped out most of the information we could have had about the Norse religion?

I suspect that the beliefs about Valhalla may have encouraged more violence than was strictly necessary among Norse cultures, but what little we know about their beliefs is what Christians decided to record, and who knows how reliable that is? Unfortunately, Christians destroyed an awful lot of knowledge over the centuries, probably because they know that their beliefs cannot stand up to any kind of rhetorical scrutiny.

 

[bilby]

By what metrics could that even be tested?

One major difference I can see right away is that it bound the people who previously followed these religions (and the Norse religion is not the same kind of religion as Christianity, is religion even the right word for Norse myths and practices?) into the fold of Christians which deeply affected political allegiances.

Why should the Norse have given a flying fuck about having extra compassion for people in France? But if they were now both Christians^TM and there are Muslims^TM attacking then there is a "reason" to care.

Sort of like Malaysians caring extra about Muslims in Burma now - other than a basic humanitarian sense. Pathetic tribalism.

At any rate, other than inter tribal aspects and alliances was Christianity an upgrade or downgrade from Norse religion for the Norse people?

Was it bound to have all of these local religions subsumed into larger ones with growth of civilization and trade and migrations?

How can we possibly make that comparison given that Christians wiped out most of the information we could have had about the Norse religion?

I suspect that the beliefs about Valhalla may have encouraged more violence than was strictly necessary among Norse cultures, but what little we know about their beliefs is what Christians decided to record, and who knows how reliable that is? Unfortunately, Christians destroyed an awful lot of knowledge over the centuries, probably because they know that their beliefs cannot stand up to any kind of rhetorical scrutiny.

Exactly. When you lose a lot of battles during a war for supremacy, it's inevitable that you accuse your enemy of violence after you win. Who knows how accurate those accusations are?

 

[funinspace]

By what metrics could that even be tested?

One major difference I can see right away is that it bound the people who previously followed these religions (and the Norse religion is not the same kind of religion as Christianity, is religion even the right word for Norse myths and practices?) into the fold of Christians which deeply affected political allegiances.

Why should the Norse have given a flying fuck about having extra compassion for people in France? But if they were now both Christians^TM and there are Muslims^TM attacking then there is a "reason" to care.

Sort of like Malaysians caring extra about Muslims in Burma now - other than a basic humanitarian sense. Pathetic tribalism.

At any rate, other than inter tribal aspects and alliances was Christianity an upgrade or downgrade from Norse religion for the Norse people?

Was it bound to have all of these local religions subsumed into larger ones with growth of civilization and trade and migrations?

How can we possibly make that comparison given that Christians wiped out most of the information we could have had about the Norse religion?

I suspect that the beliefs about Valhalla may have encouraged more violence than was strictly necessary among Norse cultures, but what little we know about their beliefs is what Christians decided to record, and who knows how reliable that is? Unfortunately, Christians destroyed an awful lot of knowledge over the centuries, probably because they know that their beliefs cannot stand up to any kind of rhetorical scrutiny.

Uhm...I don't think blaming the Christians for 'wiping out most of the information' is even remotely close to reality for the Vikings.

https://www.historyonthenet.com/viking-literature-stories-sagas-and-myths/

Long winters when people were cooped up inside were fertile soil for these stories of old. For centuries, they were kept alive in the hearts of Scandinavians by storytellers. However, the great literature of the Viking Age was in danger of being completely lost as time went by, old folks died and younger people didn’t remember. Finally, with the advent of Christianity in Iceland, Christian churchmen taught the Icelanders to write.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings

A variety of sources illuminate the culture, activities, and beliefs of the Vikings. Although they were generally a non-literate culture that produced no literary legacy, they had an alphabet and described themselves and their world on runestones. Most contemporary literary and written sources on the Vikings come from other cultures that were in contact with them.
<snip>
The most important primary sources on the Vikings are contemporary texts from Scandinavia and regions where the Vikings were active.[68] Writing in Latin letters was introduced to Scandinavia with Christianity, so there are few native documentary sources from Scandinavia before the late 11th and early 12th centuries.[69] The Scandinavians did write inscriptions in runes, but these are usually very short and formulaic. Most contemporary documentary sources consist of texts written in Christian and Islamic communities outside Scandinavia, often by authors who had been negatively affected by Viking activity.

And FWIW, I doubt that Christianity was worse than the Norse religion. Either way, Christianity certainly is losing its grip of the Nordic countries, probably and partially due to the later adoption of the religion.

 

[Potoooooooo]

 

[Underseer]

Uhm...I don't think blaming the Christians for 'wiping out most of the information' is even remotely close to reality for the Vikings.

https://www.historyonthenet.com/viking-literature-stories-sagas-and-myths/

Long winters when people were cooped up inside were fertile soil for these stories of old. For centuries, they were kept alive in the hearts of Scandinavians by storytellers. However, the great literature of the Viking Age was in danger of being completely lost as time went by, old folks died and younger people didn’t remember. Finally, with the advent of Christianity in Iceland, Christian churchmen taught the Icelanders to write.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings

A variety of sources illuminate the culture, activities, and beliefs of the Vikings. Although they were generally a non-literate culture that produced no literary legacy, they had an alphabet and described themselves and their world on runestones. Most contemporary literary and written sources on the Vikings come from other cultures that were in contact with them.
<snip>
The most important primary sources on the Vikings are contemporary texts from Scandinavia and regions where the Vikings were active.[68] Writing in Latin letters was introduced to Scandinavia with Christianity, so there are few native documentary sources from Scandinavia before the late 11th and early 12th centuries.[69] The Scandinavians did write inscriptions in runes, but these are usually very short and formulaic. Most contemporary documentary sources consist of texts written in Christian and Islamic communities outside Scandinavia, often by authors who had been negatively affected by Viking activity.

And FWIW, I doubt that Christianity was worse than the Norse religion. Either way, Christianity certainly is losing its grip of the Nordic countries, probably and partially due to the later adoption of the religion.

Yes. The only information we have about the Norse religion is what the Christians decided to write down. That's exactly what I was complaining about.

 

[LordKiran]

Meh delete

 

[Ramaraksha]

By what metrics could that even be tested?
One major difference I can see right away is that it bound the people who previously followed these religions (and the Norse religion is not the same kind of religion as Christianity, is religion even the right word for Norse myths and practices?) into the fold of Christians which deeply affected political allegiances.
Why should the Norse have given a flying fuck about having extra compassion for people in France? But if they were now both Christians^TM and there are Muslims^TM attacking then there is a "reason" to care.
Sort of like Malaysians caring extra about Muslims in Burma now - other than a basic humanitarian sense. Pathetic tribalism.
At any rate, other than inter tribal aspects and alliances was Christianity an upgrade or downgrade from Norse religion for the Norse people?
Was it bound to have all of these local religions subsumed into larger ones with growth of civilization and trade and migrations?

But Europe itself was fractured into several languages - can the same argument be made with regard to languages as well - kill people who speak a different language than yours, everyone will speak the same language and things will be great? That's the difference between the US and Europe right? Does that make Catholics right for trying to wipe out protestantism? Or what if the Muslims try to do the same to Atheism and Christianity once they gain power? The entire world speaking one language, only one religion allowed - is that better?

Is that not like saying Dictatorship - one voice, one way - his way (who says that? Christians and muslims) - better than Democracy - the cacophony of different ideas?

The crazy thing is that we Hindus did the latter, whereas we suffered under the Muslims who did the former. When the Mughals conquered large parts of India, they imposed Islam on the rest of us. Lots of people were converted using violence and the sword, some rulers imposed a tax on non-muslims, again forcing the poor to convert. Even today we see muslims in India but with Hindu last names - their ancestors converted to Islam. Would any of these people wish to convert back to Hinduism? Not a chance - all they know is Islam, they have no idea of Hinduism

When the Spanish conquered Mexico - many were killed until the populace abandoned their indigenous religions and converted to Christianity. Today Mexico is overwhelmingly Christian. And even today with all the knowledge of what happened to their ancestors, who brutally they were forced to convert to the religion of their masters, do any of the mexicans want to go back to their traditional religions? Very few

But Hindus did the opposite - i always say if the Buddha had been born in Muslim or Christian lands he would have been branded a heretic, an apostate and gone the same way as Giordano Bruno. There would be no Buddhism today! No Jainism, Sikhism either!

Is the world better for Hindus choosing the Democratic way? yes of course. Have we received any credit for it? Nope! Have Islam and Christianity received any blame for the torture and abuse, the enforcement of their religion? Again Nope. In fact today India faces the resentment of Sikhs - they want an independent country and see Hindus and Hinduism as the enemy! We get abused by these Sikhs - without us who wouldn't even have a religion! If we had behaved the same way as Christians and Muslims back in the day, killed off the early Sikh Gurus, we wouldn't have this problem today!

Violence has worked! Which is why Dictators will continue to use it - it is just a matter of who writes the history books, that's all

 

[Potoooooooo]

 

[J842P]

By what metrics could that even be tested?

One major difference I can see right away is that it bound the people who previously followed these religions (and the Norse religion is not the same kind of religion as Christianity, is religion even the right word for Norse myths and practices?) into the fold of Christians which deeply affected political allegiances.

Why should the Norse have given a flying fuck about having extra compassion for people in France? But if they were now both Christians^TM and there are Muslims^TM attacking then there is a "reason" to care.

Sort of like Malaysians caring extra about Muslims in Burma now - other than a basic humanitarian sense. Pathetic tribalism.

At any rate, other than inter tribal aspects and alliances was Christianity an upgrade or downgrade from Norse religion for the Norse people?

Was it bound to have all of these local religions subsumed into larger ones with growth of civilization and trade and migrations?

How can we possibly make that comparison given that Christians wiped out most of the information we could have had about the Norse religion?

I suspect that the beliefs about Valhalla may have encouraged more violence than was strictly necessary among Norse cultures, but what little we know about their beliefs is what Christians decided to record, and who knows how reliable that is? Unfortunately, Christians destroyed an awful lot of knowledge over the centuries, probably because they know that their beliefs cannot stand up to any kind of rhetorical scrutiny.

Exactly. When you lose a lot of battles during a war for supremacy, it's inevitable that you accuse your enemy of violence after you win. Who knows how accurate those accusations are?

Yep, most of what we know about the beliefs and practices of Germanic and Celtic peoples of pre-Christian Europe come from their Christian conquerors their Roman conquerors before that.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

By what metrics could that even be tested?

One major difference I can see right away is that it bound the people who previously followed these religions (and the Norse religion is not the same kind of religion as Christianity, is religion even the right word for Norse myths and practices?) into the fold of Christians which deeply affected political allegiances.

Why should the Norse have given a flying fuck about having extra compassion for people in France? But if they were now both Christians^TM and there are Muslims^TM attacking then there is a "reason" to care.

Sort of like Malaysians caring extra about Muslims in Burma now - other than a basic humanitarian sense. Pathetic tribalism.

At any rate, other than inter tribal aspects and alliances was Christianity an upgrade or downgrade from Norse religion for the Norse people?

Was it bound to have all of these local religions subsumed into larger ones with growth of civilization and trade and migrations?

How can we possibly make that comparison given that Christians wiped out most of the information we could have had about the Norse religion?

I suspect that the beliefs about Valhalla may have encouraged more violence than was strictly necessary among Norse cultures, but what little we know about their beliefs is what Christians decided to record, and who knows how reliable that is? Unfortunately, Christians destroyed an awful lot of knowledge over the centuries, probably because they know that their beliefs cannot stand up to any kind of rhetorical scrutiny.

Exactly. When you lose a lot of battles during a war for supremacy, it's inevitable that you accuse your enemy of violence after you win. Who knows how accurate those accusations are?

Many of the old Norse mythologies were in fact preserved. I have read a few books in the past collecting these tall tales and they are collectively, ludicrous, silly and stupid. Often to an extreme. If they had disappeared all together, we wouldn't really have missed much.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't know much about Norse myhology. Seems like it was similar in form to Greek mythology.

Judaism never grew, the Jews were never about conversions.

Christianity and Islam replaced smaller mythologies and belief systems.

To do that it had to have an appeal, part of it was a unifying force for the power elite. Of course Christina abuses are well known, but the underlying message is universal love and eternal salvation for all. Very appealing to poor Jewish fish man and throughout history.

What was Norse culture? Was it a warrior culture where entry into the after was determined by how you fought and died? Could you imagine western civilization based on Norse culture?

They did expand and had a major cultural influence.

.