MovieChat Forums > MadCy12
MadCy12 (15)
Posts
The confusing religiosity of this movie (Part 2)
The confusing religiosity of this movie (Part 1)
View all posts >
Replies
Not for long unfortunately, if the latest rumors are to be trusted haha.
Christopher Nolan said he'd love to direct a reboot to the 50s and 60s, which would be amazing.
Yeah that actually sounds plausible.
Hold up, Ace_Spade? I guess we share a love for Bond movies too haha! How unexpected...
No you absolutely cannot be sane and see Norse pagans and medieval Christians next to each other in terms of that. In fact, Joan of Arc was one of the rare times such things happened. Norse pagans had way way way more drugs and dreams.
"I don't understand something and have no intention to even learn about it, so it has to be dumb."
This is a textbook strawman you're presenting.
No, thank you! This conversation pushed me a bit forward where I was able to look at both the movie and Crusades with a more open mind, and it is fruitful conversations like this that the world needs more today...
Yes, I agree. As the movie points out, God would not approve of blood spilled in Jerusalem, whether it be Jewish, Muslim, or Christian. At the end of the day, if everyone is allowed to do their pilgrimages, then it does not matter who controls the city. Jerusalem is currently full of tension, between Catholics and Orthodox, Muslim Sunni and Shiite, Jews and Orthodox Jews, and so on. I believe, especially when it comes to Jerusalem, but other things too, that Balian, agnostic or not as he was, described it perfectly at the end of the movie:
<i>"If this is the Kingdom of Heaven, let God do with it as he will.” <i>
Again, I agree with you on most things, the Orthodox think too that what Rome did a lot of times was bad and un-Christlike. I mean, the great Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky, in his magnum opus "The Brothers Karamazov" brilliantly critiques the hypocrisy of the Latin Church.
But having the righteous claim to Jerusalem, and then giving the city back to the non-Christian people? I do not think the claim to Jerusalem should be made from who killed more of which side and who held it the longest.
In my opinion, Jerusalem and Antioch should have stayed Byzantine Christian, as this was a time when both Jews and Christians could go on pilgrimages. It is only when the Islamic horde of warriors appeared, countered by equivalently zealous Latin crusaders, that all really went even deeper to hell.
I'm not saying how the Orthodox Christians were perfect and were constantly being the victims of all others, but with all taken in account, the Orthodox Christian theology leaves no room, and therefore had very little people, who did bad stuff. Sure, you had events like the Russian Pogroms but this does not mean that a very large and ancient religion, moreover the entire existence of a transcendental being like God, should be discarded.
What we have today of Jerusalem is a shell of its former self. Christians are not allowed to go to certain very important sites where the Muslims built their monuments over previously Christian ones. There's parts of Jerusalem where you'll be kicked out if you have a Bible or cross on yourself.
Whatever Jerusalem may be today, it sure as hell ain't about religious equality.
By your logic every single war. country, and warrior in the modern history of our world is an ISIS extremist. What you're saying simply is not true. Fighting in the name of religion, taking back lands that were once yours, is not ISIS, it is simply war. Instances of rape were very, very, uncommon, and those "Crusaders" killed at times (Orthodox) Christians, not just Muslims.
The Muslims, because of their epileptic "prophet", killed and displaced untold amounts of people because the Quran commands Muslims to break the cross and kill unbelievers.
As for the book you linked, I can tell you just went to the Wikipedia page "religious fanaticism" and just grabbed the first thing you saw. Guess what sunshine, quoting one psychologist and theologian, who is not even a historian, on the wonderfully complex and compelling history of the Crusades? That's not gonna cut it. There's dozens of real, credible, unbiased, and trustworthy ACTUAL HISTORIANS that could laugh at your position.
Just get outta here, you're diverting away from the point and keep calling people names.
I agree with a lot of the stuff you're saying, though I think that "Christians killed Jews" is not a good argument against the claim. Especially if you were to hypothetically believe in the (Orthodox) Christian God or even prove his existence, then it had little to do with politics, though that seems like a short-sighted way to go about it.
As I said, the Catholics killed a lot of Christians, and not trying to play the victim here, but the Orthodox kept getting the short end of the stick.
If you think there is a clear connection between various Crusader kingdoms a a millennia ago, and Isis terrorists, then you need help my friend, and if you are willing to ignore basic history, then you need help all the more.
Also, calling me names like "zealot" and "fanatic" simply because I don't think Crusaders = ISIS is just laughable and ridiculous and does not even require a rebuttal.
I highly doubt you read my post, because if you did, you would not be talking about Isis and the Crusader movement itself right off the bat. In the 1/1000 chance scenario that you did read it, you're sure acting like you did not.
I'm still laughing, you made my day.
View all replies >