[quote="CarloMagnus, post:18, topic:275744"]
The issue, regarding those words, are that you are forgetting that all of that came about after Niklot attacked. Had Niklot not attacked, the Bishops would have sent missionaries to convert peacefully. However, another grand issue as to why sending missionaries was problematic was because the Church had already sent missionaries; and most were murdered, save St. Meinhard, who created the Livonian Sword Brothers.
If we look to Scripture, I remember that a certain Iesus Christus said a parable in which a man sent three servants to some greedy workers. One they beat, another they murdered and one they stoned. He sent more, showing mercy, yet they would not show mercy in return. Then he sent his son and his son was murdered. How else should the Father act for the death of his son?
You seem to be replying only to the comment at the very end of that quote. There was much more than a pagan simply saying they would have done better if they'd sent missionaries.
The parable of the vineyard is in no way comparable. The Vineyard belonged to the owner (the father), the pagan lands of Europe did not belong to the states and orders who wared against them.
Please name them, but remember that the topic is mainly on the Northern Crusades.
Yes, I said Crusades but I was limiting myself to the Northern Crusades. I thought context would make that clear.
But, for example, the Livonian Crusade was one primarily fought by an Order rather than a state.
I don't know the meaning of 'true Christian'. If you mean that a person who is not Orthodox is not Christian, or do you mean that someone who is not a Protestant or a Catholic is not Christian, I would disagree. For a Christian is, and has always been known as, one who believes and follows Christ. To lay doubts into the intentions of these men is to say that you knew them. And I don't think that's the case; especially considering that they lived so very long ago. Adelbert, Bruno and Meinhard initially converted the pagans by peaceful means, but faced with resistance and apostasy, Meinhard turned to the idea of a crusade. It wasn't as a means of evil, for subjugation can often mean to seize upon someone who was more a trouble to themselves than to everyone else, but a means of mercy.
By true Christian I meant someone who actually believes. As opposed to a nominal one, who pays lip service and goes through the motions. I'm not sure what I've ever said to make you think that I would think non-Orthodox aren't Christians.
And to lay doubts on their intentions is pretty simple when we see what they've done. To claim that doubt cannot be laid on them is essentially saying that you don't want to hear any arguments against your position, even though you claimed to start this thread wanting to hear what others thought.
It certainly cannot be taken for granted that their motives were pure. They need to show that. The description of Henry the Lion and what his troops did certainly seems to me to suggest the Crusaders were not pure of heart.
Nine_Two, an ideal is not just an ideal that exists because it suddenly appears. An ideal is something which attracts or detracts others to it. That is why, with the romances, like King Arthur(The History of the Kings of Britain), Tristan & Isolde, Parzival, Erec and Iwein were extremely popular works. Because they had in them the Code of Chivalry which in contrast to us would be like reading about a story from Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield or Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden (minus the Romances). It was that sense of principles that inspired.
Thanks. I know what an ideal is. In addition to what you've stated they are something to strive for, but are seldom met. They are certainly not a societal standard.
While I can't say that every crusader's motives were complete goodness, neither can I say they were complete evil.
No one has argued the latter, but you certainly seem to be trying to argue the former. It is good to see that you don't actually believe it.
Chivalry is not just an ideal; it's a choice, it's a lifestyle. Orthodox Saints could attest to that, as well as Catholic Saints. Was not St. George correct to defend the innocent? Was not St. Alexander Nevski doing what was best for his people? Didn't St. Joan of Arc accept the call from God to save her French people? These are all attributes of Chivalry. And as I believe in them then, so do I believe in them now; just as I have seen my Christian brethren act on these principles a hundred times over, which only God can know the correct amount.
The Orthodox ideal would preclude having a sword in hand to start with. St. Alexander Nevski did what he had to and was a savior to his people (incidently the very Crusaders you speak of), but he was also a sinner. He was forced to live within the world. I wouldn't hold him up as an example of the Western view of Chivalry, let alone an Eastern view. He was above all a sinner, his status as a saint is only by the grace of God.
While a soldier can act with conscience, and with concern for his fellow man. The idea that he can emulate Christ with a sword (or a gun) in hand, is something that makes no sense to me.
That is not to say that soldiers cannot follow God and find salvation (certainly my own church recognizes two of those figures you mentioned), but they cannoy find salvation by way of the sword.
You should still remember that wikipedia is still not the greatest source of information in the world.
Are you for real?
You were the first one to link Wikipedia, then I linked to that article, to a specific portion of it, noting that I was doing so because it was well sourced.
If you must, pretend I was linking to The Northern Crusades by Eric Christiansen.