[QUOTE=Raidyr;51619332]The broad strokes are accurate but it generalizes a lot and assumes that the Muslim world is one monolithic entity that opposed Christendom. A huge part of his narrative is based on this idea which simply doesn't hold up to historical analysis.
It's the oversimplified, partial truth of the crusades as told by someone who see's a narrative being pushed and wants to push back. Welcome to Molyneux.[/quote]
Well like I said that you shouldn't take him for your comprehensive history part.
But I wouldn't say that making muslims seem monolithic is anything new. Growing up and some recent classes have regularly painted this time period as "When the Christians did this." and treated them like a monolithic force. Hell as an atheist, Christianity easily becomes looking like an monolith force and the best thing you can do is just recognize that.
[quote]
He doesn't criticize Christians or Europeans whatsoever.
I get that he opposes the self-castigation that is popular when it comes to the topic of the Crusades but he swings the pendulum to the far other side and ends up being about as accurate as the people he criticizes.[/QUOTE]
Yep, but I wouldn't say this video isn't worth anything. Just realize that the shoe is on the other foot on how you are learning the crusades.
Just sucks for people online that there isn't that many interesting/concise history tools for a new crowd to enjoy. I think something like Extra History is the closest thing to that.
Stefan Molyneux isn't a reliable source on anything, and the reason he made the video is to give a modern political tone to an event that has very little to do with modern politics. Typical strategy of the far-right.
[QUOTE=Overhauser;51619248][editline]4th January 2017[/editline]
In result:
Saying "it wasn't a goal" is just as wrong as saying that it was.
There are as many goals as there were crusaders. If you want to talk goals you always have to specify WHOs goals you are talking about.
[/QUOTE]
If we include everything that happened from the participants involved in the Crusades, then the same could be said about any other war.
It was the "goal" of many Allied troops to commit rape in Germany. This is an unfortunate event, but it would of course be absurd to condemn the offensives as a whole for this reason.
Well it's so easy to make it into an "us vs them" scenario by grossly oversimplifying it. This aways happens when people search for justification for their dislike of "the others"
[QUOTE=daschnek;51619561]Stefan Molyneux isn't a reliable source on anything, and the reason he made the video is to give a modern political tone to an event that has very little to do with modern politics. Typical strategy of the far-right.[/QUOTE]
His fall of rome video is just a fantastic example of how he's a propagandist more than a serious historian.
Let's just take several hundreds of years of history, somehow condense it all, get many basic facts wrong, and then apply presentist interpretations to back up some fun wacky ideas such as those he has about women.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51622221]His fall of rome video is just a fantastic example of how he's a propagandist more than a serious historian.[/QUOTE]
Explain? I don't want to give this """"""historian""""""""" any views
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51622225]Explain? I don't want to give this """"""historian""""""""" any views[/QUOTE]
It's somewhat of a pain because the video is a feature length film, and it feels weird to try to pull out parts. But the biggest issue I had was him trying to draw 1:1 comparisons with Rome to the modern day, subsidizing grain to the poor = the growing welfare state which caused hordes of people who don't want to work to move in, the tetrarchy = expanding government bureaucracy, despite how it saved Rome and was necessary due to size, and so-on.
And then there's also the stuff talking about how women grew too powerful and autonomous, but you've probably heard those arguments about degenerate culture from many people before and I don't really wanna dive into a 2 hour 30 minute video again.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51622406]But the biggest issue I had was him trying to draw 1:1 comparisons with Rome to the modern day.[/QUOTE]
You'd have to be so illiterate and borderline retarded to even attempt that comparison in any way, shape or form.
It's like he didn't read anything in school or outside of it
[QUOTE=Zick-1957;51617069]No surprise there that Islam engaged similar activities to Christianity, after all they are both violent religions, one just had more opportunity to evolve than the other.[/QUOTE]
How is Christianity inherently violent? Jesus was one of the biggest pacifists throughout history.
Also despite Molyneux being a washed out video game developer turned revisionist, he does have a point. The Crusades were provoked and weren't some random act which is rarely touched upon in modern Western history.
[sp]Video game dev part was a joke btw, but for about half the video I forget Peter and Stefan were different people.[/sp]
Except for that bit when Jesus beat the shit out of money lenders
And that other time he said to kill non believers
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51622717]Except for that bit when Jesus beat the shit out of money lenders
[b]And that other time he said to kill non believers[/b][/QUOTE]
When was this
And if you quote the oft-repeated-out-of-context-by-idiot-atheists-that-don't-do-the-research where he's talking about a king in a story saying something and it's being framed as his own words, I will slap you
I am an idiot atheist who did not do his research.
Today I learned.
Either way he did beat the shit out of some people.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51622943]I am an idiot atheist who did not do his research.
Today I learned.
Either way he did beat the shit out of some people.[/QUOTE]
Yeah you can argue that he didn't use the "whip of cords" to actually hit anyone and that he just used it to scare them away, but either way that's not pacifist behavior, so you're right on that part.
Sorry about the whole "idiot atheist" thing, it's just that that passage so infuriating because I'm an atheist and the person who must have originally found the quote about "bringing the non-believers to me and killing them," and attributing it as Jesus telling people to do so, was such an intellectually dishonest scumbag. And how could so many people see a passage like that attributed to Jesus, and knowing how it doesn't match any portrayal of him or any other thing he's ever done, and not question it enough to spend the few minutes required to look it up? It's so frustrating to see it repeated because that sort of taking bible versus horribly out of context is usually something I see used by religious fundamentalists, not atheists.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51622943]I am an idiot atheist who did not do his research.
Today I learned.
Either way he did beat the shit out of some people.[/QUOTE]
Yes, Jesus kicked cheats and thieves out of the temple.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51623099]New Internatioal, Matthew 21:12[/QUOTE]
John has a slightly different account of the incident
[url]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+2%3A13%E2%80%9316&version=NRSV[/url]
[quote]The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. 15 [b]Making a whip of cords[/b], he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!”[/quote]
According to that passage (presumably of the same incident?) he used a whip made of cords to drive them out. Although rereading the passage it could mean that he used it on the animals, not the people.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51623099]New Internatioal, Matthew 21:12[/QUOTE]
Right, and the next verse is: "And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers’ den.”"
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51623833]They are robbers only according to Jesus, they arent literally "cheats and thieves", they are only robbers because usury is robbery, according to Jesus and a bunch of other prophets from the Abrahamic line all the way up to Muhammad.
Doesnt mean Usury == Robbery objectively though.
Jesus didnt kick out "cheats and thieves", he kicked out "[people] buying and selling, money changers, [people] selling doves" and called them robbers, "cheats and thieves".
[editline]5th January 2017[/editline]
IMO Jesus isnt violent but that isnt really the point. For one, people generally believe in whatever they believe in, no matter what the stupid book says, they can just nitpick their ways out of it. It is especially easier to ignore Theoligians.
It is argued in the book "[URL="https://books.google.de/books?id=Rqd1zRZp-kMC&pg=RA1-PA337&dq=oliver+cromwell+joshua+ireland&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidu9zL0KnRAhXpLsAKHRWtA2cQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=oliver cromwell joshua ireland&f=false"]The Bible: Authorized King James Version[/URL]", for example, that the Old Testament story influenced Protestant atrocities in Ireland in 1650s, no matter what the Theoligians say about the Old Testament, or no matter what Jesus said on Temple Mount. What the religion says word for word doesnt really matter as much as the contemporary circumstances, which can turn the followers of what would appear to be one of the most peaceful religions of the better half of Eurasia into bloodlusted beasts allegedly engaging in [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma'arra#Cannibalism"]cannibalism[/URL].
That is why I find arguing like "B-but this is whats written!" to be meaningless. The believers dont care about whats written, why should we, while trying to understad them?[/QUOTE]
Why would you suggest usury? They weren't bankers. They were money changes, as in they exchanged one type of money for another.
In the context of the story, they were being considered robbers. Maybe they had false weights and where cheating people?
[QUOTE=sgman91;51623899]Why would you suggest usury? They weren't bankers. They were money changes, as in they exchanged one type of money for another.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that kinda how banks got started, to begin with? Lending money and exchanging different currencies are pretty much the basis of banking
Not to mention that the word "bank" itself comes from the tables and counters people used to make transactions on
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51623758]John has a slightly different account of the incident
[url]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+2%3A13%E2%80%9316&version=NRSV[/url]
According to that passage (presumably of the same incident?) he used a whip made of cords to drive them out. Although rereading the passage it could mean that he used it on the animals, not the people.[/QUOTE]
The quote says "both the sheep and the cattle" which I don't know about how you learned the meaning of both, but it usually only includes two things which are listed as sheep and cattle, not people.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51623833]What the religion says word for word doesnt really matter as much as the contemporary circumstances, which can turn the followers of what would appear to be one of the most peaceful religions of the better half of Eurasia into bloodlusted beasts allegedly engaging in [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma'arra#Cannibalism"]cannibalism[/URL].[/QUOTE]
wtf is the point of this? This clearly wasn't religiously motivated, but rather due to people being fucking hungry.
[QUOTE=T553412;51623921]Isn't that kinda how banks got started, to begin with? Lending money and exchanging different currencies are pretty much the basis of banking
Not to mention that the word "bank" itself comes from the tables and counters people used to make transactions on[/QUOTE]
Possibly, but that's not what's happening in this case. Jews from all over came to Jerusalem and had to exchange their local money with the correct money for the Palestinian area.
People aren't going to start doing bad things because a religion tells them to, rather bad people are going to use religion to justify doing bad things. Eliminate religion and it won't stop people from finding other excuses to do shitty things (e.g. Communist Russia).
[editline]4th January 2017[/editline]
Also you guys are missing the point of the story. People were entering the Temple, a religious site, just to make money, not to actually pray.
The title 'the truth about the crusades' sets off enough historical red-flags you could parade it through the red square in 1946 and people would just assume it was the May Day celebrations.
Is this presentation one sided and biased? Yes. The problem is that normal narrative that general society believes is just as one sided and biased.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51624761]Is this presentation one sided and biased? Yes. The problem is that normal narrative that general society believes is just as one sided and biased.[/QUOTE]
"But they do it to!" is not an excuse.
That's playground logic.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51624906]"But they do it to!" is not an excuse.
That's playground logic.[/QUOTE]
Where did I try to justify the OP's video? I'm just saying that both are biased. The difference being that one is a video on youtube and the other is generally accepted truth by much of western society.
You're taking a lot more out of my statement than was intended or actually said.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51625309]He isnt, actually. When you repsond to someone that says "this is bad" and you say "but that is bad too", the [rightfully] assumed stance you are taking is what Zillamaster got, it seems as if you are justifying it, arguing with someone that says "this is bad". Inserting an "I agree, but..." couldve made it clearer[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm glad it's been clarified now.
*Also, I did start off by agreeing that it was biased.*
i'd recommend the book "the first crusades: a new history" by thomas asbridge if you want to dab your toes into that part of history.
[QUOTE=matt000024;51624011]People were entering the Temple, a religious site, just to make money, not to actually pray.[/QUOTE]
The point of the anecdote isn't that Jesus did a good thing (arguably). The point of the anecdote is that Jesus did so through violent means.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
