Fatwa on terror, what the hell.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-10-2010, 00:17

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If idag.no's search function wasn't so horribly bad, I'd have a counter for that....

There are plenty of counters, but it doesn't change the fact that your ancestors converted more or less voluntarily.

**HoreTore** · 03-10-2010, 00:31

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There are plenty of counters, but it doesn't change the fact that your ancestors converted more or less voluntarily.

Now that be rather untrue. When wars are fought and torture is used to convert people it can't be called "voluntarily".

And that has absolutely zero to do with whether Christianity offers a system of government or not.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-10-2010, 00:37

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Now that be rather untrue. When wars are fought and torture is used to convert people it can't be called "voluntarily".

And that has absolutely zero to do with whether Christianity offers a system of government or not.

Cnut was King of Norway, he sent English missionaries. If he had tortured the Norsemen to the extreme he would not have remained King, especially as he spent so much time in sunny England.

**HoreTore** · 03-10-2010, 00:44

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Cnut was King of Norway, he sent English missionaries. If he had tortured the Norsemen to the extreme he would not have remained King, especially as he spent so much time in sunny England.

Uhm.... What? Why would he be deposed because he tortured people? If anything, it would make him more able to retain power.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Cnut was a Dane, not the one who christened Norway and he eventually lost the crown of Norway, due to rebellions...

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-10-2010, 00:59

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm.... What? Why would he be deposed because he tortured people? If anything, it would make him more able to retain power.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Cnut was a Dane, not the one who christened Norway and he eventually lost the crown of Norway, due to rebellions...

Did the Jarls like brutes as Kings then? Odd, the Earls didn't.

**HoreTore** · 03-10-2010, 01:14

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Did the Jarls like brutes as Kings then? Odd, the Earls didn't.

Which one of them wasn't a brute?

**al Roumi** · 03-10-2010, 11:03

As interesting a topic as the spread of Christianity among the Norse is, does it actually shed any further light on whether Christianity, and it's texts, prescribes an actual legal system (or dispute resolution mechanism) on its adherents?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-10-2010, 11:56

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Which one of them wasn't a brute?

Godwin and Godwin's sons were not so terrible (Tostig accepted), Bishop Wulfstan of York (contemporary with Cnut) was considered to be just, fair, intelligent, and is credited with avoiding a divisive and costly war after Cnut took the crown. Perhaps you equate "brute" with "violent", which I do not.

Alh_p, it does shed some light because it helps to explain why people converted. Catholicism was not the only show in town, but it plugged you into the Roman network and gave you access to all manner of advantages in trade and administration. However, the Law was not strictly theocratic. Church courts existyed and dealt with moral matters, mainly burrial, infidelity, etc. but they were hardly the only law in the land.