dartagnan wrote: I can only say that based on what I've read, and how I understand it, I don't find the claim that the Crusades were necessary to save Christendom from absolute "annihilation" to be credible.
So the fact that a religion rose up out of the desert and within a few centuries, completely conquered by force two thirds of the world's most powerful empire, and had constantly been pushing westward to consume the whole, doesn't say anything to you about possible destruction?
For me this is just common sense. Tell me how this isn't a reasonable case for it being an attempt at self-defense? Especially when that is precisely what the Crusaders claimed?
Nor do I find the claims that Christianity was the proximate cause of the rennaisance or enlightment (and thus our liberal and scientific traditions in the West) to be credible either.
Of course not. You're anti-religion background doesn't like that prospect so that makes it easier to dismiss out of hand. I find it unsettling to see so many atheists shutter at the thought that religion could be responsible for anything good. So the idea that you should probably be thankful for something Christainity has given us all, must drive you nuts. But that is simply history.
Islam is consistently adopted as the darling in academia as we are constantly told we should thank Islam for giving us things that it was never responsible for to begin with. Yet, the same arguments, when applied to Christainity and scientific acheivments by Christian scientists, suddenly mean nothing as far as appreciation for Christianity is concerned.
Dart, I am willing to give religion credit where credit is due. But I'm not willing to give it credit where it is not due. And from everything I've learned, read, etc., I see no reason to credit Christianity with the liberal and scientific traditions we today enjoy in the West. It may indeed have made important contributions at the margin, but I don't see that it should be primarily credited. I confess I don't understand well how religion and the Church influenced broader cultural traits, movements, etc. that provided impetus for progress. As for the institutional Church, it fought tooth and nail against social and scientific progress (in some, not all contexts) for centuries.
You're painting me with a very broad brush that I do not think is accurate.
I will say, however, that on balance, I believe religion to have done more harm than good over time. But in saying this note that I think that the good is likely to be significant, just not as significant as the harm. Just to make up for the millions upon millions of lives crushed in the name of religion over the eons, religion would have to do a helluva lot of good in other areas. I just don't see it.
As for the Crusades, I'm willing to concede that with more information, I may see the validity of your argument. I do not consider myself an expert on the crusades. This is why I am careful to quality my arguments by noting that this is based on what I've read and how I understand it.
I've read a good deal on the forces swirling around in the 11th century at the initiation of the 1st Crusade, and I do not recall anything pointing to, at the point in time, an immiment threat of annihilation to be a motivating force behind it. It may have, in effect, helped spare Christianity from the onslaught of Islam, but I see nothing to suggest that was its motivation. (Certainly, the 4th Crusade, which never even reached the Holy Land, had little to do with saving Christianity from annihilation. It did, however, manage to conquer an Eastern Christian empire.)
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."