Kingdom of Heaven

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Mon May 09, 2005 8:58 pm

Good things:

* Best siege I've ever seen in a movie. Much better than the one in Lord of the Rings
* Saladin was portrayed well, as were Guy de Lusignan and his bearded accomplice.

Bad things:

* Makes the Templars look like common thugs
* Thinks Guy de Lusignan was not only a member of the Knights Templar but actually had the authority to order them to commit assassinations.
* The Arabs were civilised intellectuals while the Christians were barbarian brutes
* Guy de Lusignan wasn't in the siege like in real life
* The Leper King (dude with the mask in the trailers) doesn't do any fighting like I expected. Biggest dissappointment.
* seems to pander to secular humanism (:roll: )

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue May 10, 2005 7:52 am

Yeah, it's weird, even games portraying Christian Europe vs Muslim Middle East always makes the Christians the barbarians....Age of Empires II does this. Any/much swearing? That's what bothers me the most....how sad, someone I know was hoping it had a Christian worldview.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Tue May 10, 2005 8:23 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Yeah, it's weird, even games portraying Christian Europe vs Muslim Middle East always makes the Christians the barbarians....Age of Empires II does this. Any/much swearing? That's what bothers me the most....how sad, someone I know was hoping it had a Christian worldview.

Well, they WERE getting death threats from muslims. But how does Age of Empires 2 make Christians barbarians? I thought it was fairly accurate.

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Tue May 10, 2005 8:35 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Yeah, it's weird, even games portraying Christian Europe vs Muslim Middle East always makes the Christians the barbarians....Age of Empires II does this. Any/much swearing? That's what bothers me the most....how sad, someone I know was hoping it had a Christian worldview.

No swearing, but quite a bit of violence and your typical battle scenes.

To be fair, I think if you could go back and look, the portrayal of the Christians would not have been that innacurate. Namely that there were a number of them who were moral, upright, and honestly trying to do good. Then there were a portion of them that were merely there for personal gain and to fight, and who weren't Christian despite their empty claims to be.

Probably my biggest problem with the movie was that it portrayed the Muslims in too positive of light... War is hell, and neither should have been portrayed as noble, IMO.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue May 10, 2005 8:42 am

I'm all for violence, as long as it's the good kind...war is good...not to be personally in it, but to watch mock-war is cool.

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Fri May 20, 2005 9:15 pm

Mastermind wrote:Well, they WERE getting death threats from muslims. But how does Age of Empires 2 make Christians barbarians? I thought it was fairly accurate.

Eh? Isn't that a game?

jerickson314 · Post by **jerickson314** » Fri May 20, 2005 9:20 pm

Forge wrote:
Mastermind wrote:Well, they WERE getting death threats from muslims. But how does Age of Empires 2 make Christians barbarians? I thought it was fairly accurate.
Eh? Isn't that a game?

Well, it's from Microsoft and is therefore evil anyway.

LittleShepherd · Post by **LittleShepherd** » Sat May 21, 2005 2:28 am

Expecting an accurate portayal of the Crusades in any type of popular media is going to result in nothing but disappointment.

You'll never see them show that Muslims had been attacking Christian nations for hundreds of years prior to the Crusades. In fact, almost all of the lands occupied by Muslims at the time were once Christian lands, converted by the sword(This truth does a lot to dispel the notion that Islam is a religion of peace.). The Crusades were the one and only time that people who referred to themselves as Christians ever initiated battle with Muslims, and they did so under false pretenses.

1 -- They weren't Christians. They were Roman Catholics. The real Christians were too busy being taxed/killed by the Muslims or being persecuted by the Roman Catholics as "heretics" to have any major role in the Crusades.
2 -- They promised a guarantee of heaven to all who went on these Crusades, which contradicts the Bible they were <B>supposed</B> to be following in every conceivable way.

The only reason that Europe wasn't Muslim terrotory at this time was that France staved off their invasion when they began invading Europe via Spain. Even that battle was initiated by Muslims, the French simply defending themselves(and the rest of Europe). And yes, you heard me right. France is responsible for saving our butts from the Muslims. Yes, <B>that</B> France. Quit interrupting.

But no, you'll never hear the facts in popular media. The Crusades will always be considered a great evil(which it was) perpetuated by Christians(which it wasn't) against innocent, peaceful Muslims(like forcefully occupying previously-Christian lands is in any way peaceful or innocent).

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Sat May 21, 2005 3:16 am

LittleShepherd wrote:1 -- They weren't Christians. They were Roman Catholics. The real Christians were too busy being taxed/killed by the Muslims or being persecuted by the Roman Catholics as "heretics" to have any major role in the Crusades.

Many Roman Catholics are real Christians, even the likes of Martin Luther who only desired reformation within the RCC.

Kurieuo.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Sun May 22, 2005 7:00 am

How were the crusades under false pretenses?

LittleShepherd · Post by **LittleShepherd** » Sun May 22, 2005 10:13 am

How were the crusades under false pretenses?

Please note items 1 and 2 in the paragraph immediately following "false pretenses." I think they are quite clear.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Mon May 23, 2005 7:23 am

I have. Point 1 sounds like emotional blabbering without any root in hisotry and 2 is not even a pretense. They didn't go on the Crusades to get into heaven any more than you are a Christian because you want to get into heaven. I'll tell you why they did go on the Crusades: they went to:

A) Take the holy land from people who would slaguhter any christian that wanted to go on a pilgrimage there.
B) Respond to a couple hundred years history of muslim agression and put the heat on Islam thus keeping it off their own lands.

I find it sad that christians still buy into the humanist propaganda crap and lies that have been spreading around.

LittleShepherd · Post by **LittleShepherd** » Mon May 23, 2005 6:56 pm

You'll find that if you step back and look at what had been going on in the "church" for the past 700 years, you'll find point 1 to be quite well-grounded. From its origins to its traditions to its actions, the RCC(especially pre-1500s) is not the church established by Christ, and its adherents were mostly non-Christians with no knowledge of the truth of salvation through Christ independent from works. The occasional silent Christian or splinter group doesn't do anything to change this.

The second point is also valid. They were under the impression that by reclaiming the Holy Land, they would somehow be looked upon with favor by God and given a place in heaven. Pilgrimages are not a Christian tradition, and the Holy Land was never a Christian land. There were many Jewish Christians at one point, yes, but the Jewish people for the most part rejected Christ. And the people who drove the Jews out of Israel and scattered them were also not Christians.

It seems to me that the Crusades were just lie after lie after lie. It's no wonder they were a spectacular failure.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Mon May 23, 2005 7:17 pm

LittleShepherd wrote:You'll find that if you step back and look at what had been going on in the "church" for the past 700 years, you'll find point 1 to be quite well-grounded. From its origins to its traditions to its actions, the RCC(especially pre-1500s) is not the church established by Christ, and its adherents were mostly non-Christians with no knowledge of the truth of salvation through Christ independent from works. The occasional silent Christian or splinter group doesn't do anything to change this.

The second point is also valid. They were under the impression that by reclaiming the Holy Land, they would somehow be looked upon with favor by God and given a place in heaven. Pilgrimages are not a Christian tradition, and the Holy Land was never a Christian land. There were many Jewish Christians at one point, yes, but the Jewish people for the most part rejected Christ. And the people who drove the Jews out of Israel and scattered them were also not Christians.

It seems to me that the Crusades were just lie after lie after lie. It's no wonder they were a spectacular failure.

Funny, the crusades were originally intended by Pope Urban to help the Byzantine Empire which was suffering heavily because of the Turks. Many of the soldiers who enlisted were good people who intended to try to do God's work. However there were many more greedy men, just as there are many more false christians than true christians, who just wanted war and loot.

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:58 pm

Religion isn't to blame. It's power-hungry men with an ego-trip telling them God is telling them to do crap.