"Kill Them All. God Knows His Own."

[Ironhold]

This is something that's come up elsewhere, and the people - all Mainline Christians - who I am talking with are refusing to give me a straight answer.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/kill-them-all.html
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/07/kill-them-all-and-let-god-sort-them-out.html
http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/07/22/1209-albigensian-crusade-cathars-beziers/

In the early 1200s, the Roman Catholic Church declared a crusade against the Cathars, a Christian group that they had deemed "heretical". In 1209, a group of these Crusaders descended upon the French town of Beziers, where the local Catholics and Cathars had lived together in harmony for several years. The Crusaders demanded that the town turn over the local Cathars, but the town refused. In response, the Crusaders attacked the town, slaughtering approximately 20,000 people.

It is estimated that there were only a few hundred Cathars in the town at most, meaning that much of the carnage represented Catholics killing Catholics.

Nowadays such an action would be regarded as a war crime, but back then it was all kosher since the slaughter took place in God's name and the Cathars were nasty little "heretics".

What say you about this incident? It's a pretty clear-cut case of mainline Christianity being maintained by the sword, yet the people who I am speaking with are waffling on even recognizing that it happened because it doesn't fit their narrative.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is something that's come up elsewhere, and the people - all Mainline Christians - who I am talking with are refusing to give me a straight answer.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/kill-them-all.html
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/07/kill-them-all-and-let-god-sort-them-out.html
http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/07/22/1209-albigensian-crusade-cathars-beziers/

In the early 1200s, the Roman Catholic Church declared a crusade against the Cathars, a Christian group that they had deemed "heretical". In 1209, a group of these Crusaders descended upon the French town of Beziers, where the local Catholics and Cathars had lived together in harmony for several years. The Crusaders demanded that the town turn over the local Cathars, but the town refused. In response, the Crusaders attacked the town, slaughtering approximately 20,000 people.

It is estimated that there were only a few hundred Cathars in the town at most, meaning that much of the carnage represented Catholics killing Catholics.

Nowadays such an action would be regarded as a war crime, but back then it was all kosher since the slaughter took place in God's name and the Cathars were nasty little "heretics".

What say you about this incident? It's a pretty clear-cut case of mainline Christianity being maintained by the sword, yet the people who I am speaking with are waffling on even recognizing that it happened because it doesn't fit their narrative.

History exists only in the mind of the story teller. One cannot prove past events of any kind. But to your story in question, out of thousands I've met, I can safely say I know one person who is Spirit Filled. The joy in his life is radiant and pervasive.

 

[Ironhold]

So, more dodging, then?

This isn't saying good things, especially since I'm in a faith that mainline Christianity rakes over the coals every time one of us so much as sneezes the wrong way.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You cannot expect modern morality from the Middle Ages. If a town resisted a siege, the attackers had a right to sack it.

This response was actually condemned by contemporaries, which is why we have the quote in the first place.

All people of any faith or group should be raked over the coals for wrong doing. There is a difference though between retroactively doing this for events that weren't that bad by contemporary standards and modern wrongs. For instance, we could call Mohammed a paedophile for his underage wife, but this was quite normal in 7th century Arabia so would be unfair. Likewise Mediaeval soldiers sacking a city is normal. The Albigensian Crusade was as much about centralising French Authority and supressing Provencal independance as it was about religion.
By Mediaeval standards, to supress heresy was laudible. Similarly people supported the arrest of Oscar Wilde for homosexuality. Just because we today disagree, it does not allow us to pass judgment on them. The future will no doubt pass judgment on us as well for our 'immoral acts'.

One looks at the theoretical standards we are supposed to keep, not on the natural human tendency to fail to keep them. Christ quite emphatically said to Love your enemies, turn the other cheek and to wash the dust off your feet - not to kill heretics. This is a mediaeval event done by Christians, not a Christian event.

 

[Hieronymus]

This is something that's come up elsewhere, and the people - all Mainline Christians - who I am talking with are refusing to give me a straight answer.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/kill-them-all.html
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/07/kill-them-all-and-let-god-sort-them-out.html
http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/07/22/1209-albigensian-crusade-cathars-beziers/

In the early 1200s, the Roman Catholic Church declared a crusade against the Cathars, a Christian group that they had deemed "heretical". In 1209, a group of these Crusaders descended upon the French town of Beziers, where the local Catholics and Cathars had lived together in harmony for several years. The Crusaders demanded that the town turn over the local Cathars, but the town refused. In response, the Crusaders attacked the town, slaughtering approximately 20,000 people.

It is estimated that there were only a few hundred Cathars in the town at most, meaning that much of the carnage represented Catholics killing Catholics.

Nowadays such an action would be regarded as a war crime, but back then it was all kosher since the slaughter took place in God's name and the Cathars were nasty little "heretics".

What say you about this incident? It's a pretty clear-cut case of mainline Christianity being maintained by the sword, yet the people who I am speaking with are waffling on even recognizing that it happened because it doesn't fit their narrative.

It's anti-Christian behaviour.
Christians shouldn't defend it.

 

[ChetSinger]

I'm not going to defend it. I think the Western church went downhill after the schism and this is an example of it.

 

[BigDaddy4]

This is something that's come up elsewhere, and the people - all Mainline Christians - who I am talking with are refusing to give me a straight answer.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/kill-them-all.html
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/07/kill-them-all-and-let-god-sort-them-out.html
http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/07/22/1209-albigensian-crusade-cathars-beziers/

In the early 1200s, the Roman Catholic Church declared a crusade against the Cathars, a Christian group that they had deemed "heretical". In 1209, a group of these Crusaders descended upon the French town of Beziers, where the local Catholics and Cathars had lived together in harmony for several years. The Crusaders demanded that the town turn over the local Cathars, but the town refused. In response, the Crusaders attacked the town, slaughtering approximately 20,000 people.

It is estimated that there were only a few hundred Cathars in the town at most, meaning that much of the carnage represented Catholics killing Catholics.

Nowadays such an action would be regarded as a war crime, but back then it was all kosher since the slaughter took place in God's name and the Cathars were nasty little "heretics".

What say you about this incident? It's a pretty clear-cut case of mainline Christianity being maintained by the sword, yet the people who I am speaking with are waffling on even recognizing that it happened because it doesn't fit their narrative.

You are bearing false witness. You were given "a straight answer" "elsewhere". No "waffling". You just didn't like the answer.

Why don't you just link to this "elsewhere" so readers can get the context?

 

[Ironhold]

You are bearing false witness. You were given "a straight answer" "elsewhere". No "waffling". You just didn't like the answer.

Why don't you just link to this "elsewhere" so readers can get the context?

The "straight answer" I got was "I don't care."

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ostasy-is-a-lie.7946365/page-49#post-69796008

And what does that have to do with my faith in Jesus Christ? Maybe you haven't been hearing, our relationship is with God.

 

[BigDaddy4]

The "straight answer" I got was "I don't care."

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ostasy-is-a-lie.7946365/page-49#post-69796008

Try post #965

 

[Ironhold]

Try post #965

You mean the one wherein the poster fixated on a single point and refused to address anything else?

 

[BigDaddy4]

You mean the one wherein the poster fixated on a single point and refused to address anything else?

I mean the post where he answered your question. Which refutes your "waffling" claim in the OP. Very disingenious of you.

If you want to pose the question here, that's your deal. But don't claim that your question wasn't addressed "elsewhere" when it was.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is something that's come up elsewhere, and the people - all Mainline Christians - who I am talking with are refusing to give me a straight answer.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/kill-them-all.html
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/07/kill-them-all-and-let-god-sort-them-out.html
http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/07/22/1209-albigensian-crusade-cathars-beziers/

In the early 1200s, the Roman Catholic Church declared a crusade against the Cathars, a Christian group that they had deemed "heretical". In 1209, a group of these Crusaders descended upon the French town of Beziers, where the local Catholics and Cathars had lived together in harmony for several years. The Crusaders demanded that the town turn over the local Cathars, but the town refused. In response, the Crusaders attacked the town, slaughtering approximately 20,000 people.

It is estimated that there were only a few hundred Cathars in the town at most, meaning that much of the carnage represented Catholics killing Catholics.

Nowadays such an action would be regarded as a war crime, but back then it was all kosher since the slaughter took place in God's name and the Cathars were nasty little "heretics".

What say you about this incident? It's a pretty clear-cut case of mainline Christianity being maintained by the sword, yet the people who I am speaking with are waffling on even recognizing that it happened because it doesn't fit their narrative.

It was a horrible, evil thing to do and it was wrong.

Seems pretty clear: the Albigensian Crusade was wrong and quite evil.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ironhold]

It was a horrible, evil thing to do and it was wrong.

Seems pretty clear: the Albigensian Crusade was wrong and quite evil.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you.

You're one of the few people who has been upfront enough to admit that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So, more dodging, then?

At some point you have to stop being surprised by the tap dances of the apologetic community. If I ever encountered an honest apologist, I'd eat my own head.

This isn't saying good things, especially since I'm in a faith that mainline Christianity rakes over the coals every time one of us so much as sneezes the wrong way.

I think it is well deserved for the LDS community to be raked over the coals. My sister in law lives in Salt Lake City, and recently visited because she's planning on finally moving back to Southern California. She characterizes Mormons like this:

When they're young missionaries, they're nice. They're overly nice. You can be obscene and rude to them and they will only return smiles. This is the typical kind of Mormon most people know since these are the Mormons sent out into the world. But when Mormons settle into their positions of power in Salt Lake City, their real personalities "shine," if I may use that word... perhaps "reek" is better.

Let's not forget the LDS are largely credited with blocking off gay rights in California... thankfully that was short-lived, but the later outcome was not due to the Mormon church changing its mind. Where I live, in So Cal, it's like the second Mecca for Mormons. You guys need to do a better job to turn your reputation around. You have to be extra awesome as people just to overcome the weirdness of your beliefs and religious practices, but instead you shun outsiders and minorities.

 

[Ironhold]

Let's not forget the LDS are largely credited with blocking off gay rights in California...

Actually, that was a load of hype generated by the "No" campaign in order to give an "other" they could point fingers at.

The Los Angeles Times - http://www.latimes.com/local/la-moneymap-htmlstory.html - did their own investigation into the "Mormon money" conspiracy theory, and found that the "No" crowd ultimately led in funding.

Not only did the "No" crowd raise a full $6 million more than the "Yes" crowd, they got $2 million more in total out-of-state funding as well. What's more, while the "Yes" in-state funding came from throughout the state, the "No" in-state funding was disproportionately from two counties in the state. If anything, a better case can be made for individuals in these two counties flooding the campaign with money than the LDS faith.

I've shown a number of "No" supporters this link in the years since, and they all handled the matter in the same way that the people I referred to in the OP handled the matter of the massacre.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Actually, that was a load of hype generated by the "No" campaign in order to give an "other" they could point fingers at.

The Los Angeles Times - http://www.latimes.com/local/la-moneymap-htmlstory.html - did their own investigation into the "Mormon money" conspiracy theory, and found that the "No" crowd ultimately led in funding.

Not only did the "No" crowd raise a full $6 million more than the "Yes" crowd, they got $2 million more in total out-of-state funding as well. What's more, while the "Yes" in-state funding came from throughout the state, the "No" in-state funding was disproportionately from two counties in the state. If anything, a better case can be made for individuals in these two counties flooding the campaign with money than the LDS faith.

I've shown a number of "No" supporters this link in the years since, and they all handled the matter in the same way that the people I referred to in the OP handled the matter of the massacre.

Since I can't be bothered to fact check your sources I'll accept the claim. Still, the church of LDS is anti-gay. If their flip-flopping on polygamy and civil rights is any indication, maybe they'll flip-flop on gay rights.

 

[Ironhold]

Since I can't be bothered to fact check your sources I'll accept the claim. Still, the church of LDS is anti-gay. If their flip-flopping on polygamy and civil rights is any indication, maybe they'll flip-flop on gay rights.

Check up on the other bits I mentioned when I messaged you; the situation isn't anywheres close to what the American left has been making it out to be.

As far as polygamy goes, the women of the church were the strongest supporters. The government couldn't understand this, and so decided that it must be proof that women were too "stupid" to "know what was good for them". The end result was that all women in Utah, and all Mormons nationally, were stripped of their right to vote.

And with civil rights, the church had a racially-integrated priesthood as early as the 1830s and engaged in other progressive actions, only to pay for it in blood when local mobs came after everyone.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Check up on the other bits I mentioned when I messaged you; the situation isn't anywheres close to what the American left has been making it out to be.

As far as polygamy goes, the women of the church were the strongest supporters. The government couldn't understand this, and so decided that it must be proof that women were too "stupid" to "know what was good for them". The end result was that all women in Utah, and all Mormons nationally, were stripped of their right to vote.

And with civil rights, the church had a racially-integrated priesthood as early as the 1830s and engaged in other progressive actions, only to pay for it in blood when local mobs came after everyone.

What do Christians say about this?

 

[Ironhold]

What do Christians say about this?

Those who don't bury their heads in the sand respond with a massive amount of cognitive dissonance.

For polygamy, the "Mormon Women" voting bloc was the swing bloc in Utah after women were given the right to vote circa the 1870s. In fact, this bloc wielded such power in the state that Utah was, briefly, the hub for the suffrage movement. But the "enlightened" folks in the Eastern US couldn't figure any of this out. Whenever word got out that the Mormon Women bloc yet again voted in favor of the church and in favor of polygamy, the response was to either presume massive corruption or presume massive ignorance and stupidity. It's no longer politically correct to presume that the women of the church were stupid (especially since a number of Mormon women had college degrees at the time and some of the first female medical doctors in the US were plural Mormon wives), but the allegations of corruption and voter fraud still persist.

For the efforts at integration, I have literally heard people try to dismiss them by arguing that the church "deserved" to have its members slaughtered in Missouri for one reason or another.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Those who don't bury their heads in the sand respond with a massive amount of cognitive dissonance.

For polygamy, the "Mormon Women" voting bloc was the swing bloc in Utah after women were given the right to vote circa the 1870s. In fact, this bloc wielded such power in the state that Utah was, briefly, the hub for the suffrage movement. But the "enlightened" folks in the Eastern US couldn't figure any of this out. Whenever word got out that the Mormon Women bloc yet again voted in favor of the church and in favor of polygamy, the response was to either presume massive corruption or presume massive ignorance and stupidity. It's no longer politically correct to presume that the women of the church were stupid (especially since a number of Mormon women had college degrees at the time and some of the first female medical doctors in the US were plural Mormon wives), but the allegations of corruption and voter fraud still persist.

For the efforts at integration, I have literally heard people try to dismiss them by arguing that the church "deserved" to have its members slaughtered in Missouri for one reason or another.

OK. Now for the ultimate test of whether or not I can believe your claims:

Do you deny that Joseph Smith said extremely racist things about blacks, including the claim that they ought to be considered a different species? Do you also deny that the Book of Mormon is extremely racist in its presentation of Native Americans in that it says their skin tone is the result of a curse?