You are setting up a strawman arguement. I didn't say that Baptist killed anyone for their beliefs not once. Well at least not the present day model of baptist which is an amalgamation of differing reformed influences. What I did say in response to this Statement of yours Was 1) it wasn't the Church that was responsible for massacre your cited with The Piedmont Easter rather the Civil Authority who was not the church but a regional leader. 2) and that Baptist have a history that is not innocent of as you say it as baptist have certainly tortured and murdered other Christians (note I didn't say for their faith, Non the less they tortured and murdered with the full backing of their local churches). I then pointed to the wide acceptance of Slavery by the Southern Baptist (which many were tortured and hung for various reasons) and the trail of tears acknowledging that both African American slaves were Christian as well as the Cherokee Natives. Thus it can be said baptist did kill torture and kill other christians though not for their faith. My third point 3) was that we can no more tie the bad behavoir of this duke to the Catholic Church than we can of baptist belief to those who participated in slavery or or the trail of tears despite the wide support from their local churches. Though of course the difference is that the Catholic Church is a singular institution where as each baptist church is an institution of itself. Still can I say the fundementals which form baptist faith and doctrine lead to these attrocities? No. But neither can I say the Duke acted in accordance with Catholic Teaching.
indeed I am If your argument is they acted independently apart from their faith then this is no different than the argument I've proposed regarding the civil authorities who killed these protestants. The only difference is that where one is a mob (munster) and the other is a civil authority (The Duke). Both belied the teachings of their faith but to include one to be fair must include the other.
A little reforemed history here? First of all you haven't properly Identified "state church" and how that opperates. Where a king who holds to a faith believes they must protect that faith with in their territory thus a Catholic King will seek to root out heresy (protestant) in a manner they see fit. OR a protestant King (or Queen as in Elizabeth) will seek to root out heresey (catholic) as they see fit. The Church itself apart from the civil authorities is not involved execpt as a Clergy member may be involved in an advisory roll whose advise often wasn't taken or else you had corrupt a clergy member. But this is true in both camps as we can see how things played out in Europe. This is not reflective of the teachings of faith and morals. Catholics btw in the United States were just as invested in not only the fight for independence but ensuring that the State didn't impose itself upon religeous practices as well as were other faiths to inlcude those you mentioned. As we can see that the first three original states that provided for religious tolleration were Pennsylvania (thanks to William Penn a Quaker), Maryland (pedominately Catholic), and Virginia. And interesting to note before the Revolutionary War Catholic Maryland passed the Toleration Act in 1649 allowing for religious liberty which later was to be taken away by Puritans who leaving Anglican Virginia revolted against Maryland leadership. However, once the Catholics again took control they re-enacted the toleration act in 1658.
Well, maybe I was wrong in amending my post. Maybe I should have left the word "honest" in there after all. You know good and well that the churches which were in union with the state were guilty of persecution, torture, and murder. The Roman Catholics were, and so were the Magisterial Protestants. You know that is diametrically opposite to the position and actions of Baptists, Quakers, and Mennonites who were steadfastly against such practices and stood for religious freedom, not just tolerance, for all and were against state churches. To try to compare the Munsterites to the rest of Anabaptism and attempt to tar the Anabaptist movement by using a small bunch of fanatics is dishonest and inaccurate. The Anabaptists were pacifists in favor of complete religious liberty, not only for themselves like the hypocritical Puritan state church of New England, but for everyone.
And you include Virginia as being for religious "toleration"? Virginia, stronghold of the Anglican state church? The only reason the Anglicans gave up that position in Virginia is because they were forced to. James Madison, an Anglican, was convinced by Baptist communication with him of the rights of all to religious liberty. Look up John Leland.
No, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and all the infant baptizing, state church Magisterial Protestants were in favor of slaughtering and persecuting Anabaptists, Baptists, and other Dissenters. In this they joined the RCC which was the greatest persecuting, murdering apparatus in the history of Christendom. After all, they had centuries to practice and perfect it.
To claim that it was the state only and not the church which was responsible for state church atrocities is simply bogus. It was approved policy of the church and its leaders and also the state which was a full partner in executing the policy. Pardon the pun.
The free churches never approved of such and stood valiantly against it and for absolute religious liberty for all, even their tormentors.
Those are the facts.
