Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-13-2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

These days, Christians are not so quick to call the Crusades the golden age of Christendom, but a millennium later, their memory still reverberates.

Even so, Rodney Stark, 75, a professor of social sciences at Baylor University, says the crusaders were not all that bad, and certainly not barbaric, greedy warmongers.

In his new book “God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (or via: amazon.co.uk),” the 1996 nominee for the Pulitzer Prize depicts soldiers who truly believed their military service under God would cover over a multitude of sins—namely all that murdering and marauding required of them in the tumultuous Middle Ages.

“I get tired of people apologizing for the Crusades, like Christians were a bunch of dirty looters that went over there and killed everybody,” Stark said. “It just wasn’t true.”

Has he jumped the shark?

Stark started out as a mild mannered academic, claiming to be an agnostic. Then he converted to Christianity (coincidentally as he was offered a plum position at Baylor.) Then he claimed that Christianity was responsible for Western science.

What's next? The Inquisition was just fun and games?

I thought his earlier work on the sociology of religion was biased, but still interesting and based on some academic methodology. Now I'm wondering.

bacht · 08-13-2009, 01:36 PM

I guess Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" was an attempt to show a positive side to the Crusaders. He presents the short-lived Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem as a kind of Christian-Islamic syncretism, with enlightened rulers in conflict with fresh European arrivals intent on booty and mischief. Saladin is portrayed as the model general, mixing compassion and piety with military skill.

It's a visual treat, and the siege of Jerusalem seems realistic enough by Hollywood standards. The extra DVD material is actually pretty honest about Scott's manipulation of the original historical material.

andrewcriddle · 08-13-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I guess Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" was an attempt to show a positive side to the Crusaders. He presents the short-lived Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem as a kind of Christian-Islamic syncretism, with enlightened rulers in conflict with fresh European arrivals intent on booty and mischief. Saladin is portrayed as the model general, mixing compassion and piety with military skill.

It's a visual treat, and the siege of Jerusalem seems realistic enough by Hollywood standards. The extra DVD material is actually pretty honest about Scott's manipulation of the original historical material.

On the whole I liked "Kingdom of Heaven" but my favourite modern fictional representation of the Crusades is Cecelia Holland's marvellous novel Jerusalem (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Andrew Criddle

bacht · 08-13-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

On the whole I liked "Kingdom of Heaven" but my favourite modern fictional representation of the Crusades is Cecelia Holland's marvellous novel Jerusalem (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Andrew Criddle

Thanks, another title for my endless reading list

Steven Carr · 08-13-2009, 02:31 PM

Were the Crusaders just a bunch of dirty looters? I thought some of them were children.

andrewcriddle · 08-13-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Were the Crusaders just a bunch of dirty looters? I thought some of them were children.

The stories may be unreliable. There is a good wiki article Children's_Crusade

Andrew Criddle

Eldarion Lathria · 08-13-2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Were the Crusaders just a bunch of dirty looters? I thought some of them were children.

Yes but so were the Muslims so there. And the Crusaders didn't destroy whole cultures the way the Great Jihad of the 7th, 8th and 9th century did.

Eldarion Lathria

Vinnie · 08-13-2009, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Did the crusades get a bum rap?

Quote:

These days, Christians are not so quick to call the Crusades the golden age of Christendom, but a millennium later, their memory still reverberates.

Even so, Rodney Stark, 75, a professor of social sciences at Baylor University, says the crusaders were not all that bad, and certainly not barbaric, greedy warmongers.

In his new book “God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (or via: amazon.co.uk),” the 1996 nominee for the Pulitzer Prize depicts soldiers who truly believed their military service under God would cover over a multitude of sins—namely all that murdering and marauding required of them in the tumultuous Middle Ages.

“I get tired of people apologizing for the Crusades, like Christians were a bunch of dirty looters that went over there and killed everybody,” Stark said. “It just wasn’t true.”

Has he jumped the shark?

Stark started out as a mild mannered academic, claiming to be an agnostic. Then he converted to Christianity (coincidentally as he was offered a plum position at Baylor.) Then he claimed that Christianity was responsible for Western science.

What's next? The Inquisition was just fun and games?

I thought his earlier work on the sociology of religion was biased, but still interesting and based on some academic methodology. Now I'm wondering.

I'd have to read the book to determine if he jumped the shark.....
Christianity probably did lead to western science, though, I suppose any religion in its place might have done the same.....especially a monotheistic one...

avi · 08-14-2009, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Christianity probably did lead to western science,...

balderdash
folderol
NONSENSE
What a crock....
ABSURD
You may as well have written that Islam saved the Greek manuscripts so that the Renaissance might commence....
RUBBISH.

It was the invasion of Constantinople in the fifteenth century by the Muslims, that triggered the flight of the monks (from that ancient city with its vast repository of knowledge,) with their precious manuscripts of mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and medicine, many of them copies of books, pamphlets, and articles published 2000 years earlier, that led to the Italian Renaissance, and thus to the creation of "Western" science. The Christians, especially in Italy, fought tooth and nail to deny pagan (Greek) secular influence.

Vinnie!!! Where did you encounter the hypothesis that religions in any society promoted a philosophy ardently opposed to faith in the supernatural as explanation for the mysteries of life on planet earth?
:huh:

Religions, all of them, demand, not request, demand faith in preserving the status quo.

Science, in any flavor, demands, not requests, demands a method of questioning, and challenging the status quo, rather than accepting, and preserving the status quo.

A data driven model of inquiry is anathematic to all religions. All religions claim to already possess the truth, accordingly, data is irrelevant, a distraction, or a nuisance. No religion seeks to support a model of inquiry designed to challenge the foundations of that religion.

Roger Pearse · 08-14-2009, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

It was the invasion of Constantinople in the fifteenth century by the Muslims, that triggered the flight of the monks (from that ancient city with its vast repository of knowledge,) with their precious manuscripts of mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and medicine, many of them copies of books, pamphlets, and articles published 2000 years earlier, that led to the Italian Renaissance, and thus to the creation of "Western" science.

I don't think that I ought to ask lots of questions about this; but I would add that much of this is misleading in *detail*.

Quote:

The Christians, especially in Italy, fought tooth and nail to deny pagan (Greek) secular influence.

Not sure what is being said here. If the argument is that the renaissance people rejected paganism, they mostly did. Why should they not?

The idea that paganism = secularism is a curious one.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-13-2009, 01:36 PM	#2
bacht Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,305	I guess Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" was an attempt to show a positive side to the Crusaders. He presents the short-lived Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem as a kind of Christian-Islamic syncretism, with enlightened rulers in conflict with fresh European arrivals intent on booty and mischief. Saladin is portrayed as the model general, mixing compassion and piety with military skill. It's a visual treat, and the siege of Jerusalem seems realistic enough by Hollywood standards. The extra DVD material is actually pretty honest about Scott's manipulation of the original historical material.

08-13-2009, 02:31 PM	#5
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Were the Crusaders just a bunch of dirty looters? I thought some of them were children.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.