Why didn't God protect him?

You know the expression "balls to the walls"? Doesn't come from him but it should.

Serious answer:

Can't really do the story justice, but he was a false prophet and the big figure in the Radical Anabaptist movement in the 16th century. He was a baker from Holland. He claimed to hear the voice of God constantly and conversed openly. He dressed all in black and had a beautiful wife half his age who dressed all in white. The Anabaptists started migrating to a city in Germany called Munster and eventually voted themselves into power over the city council. They decided that the end of the world had come and sent out word for every Anabaptist in Europe to gather there, including this dude, so they could build the New Jerusalem and set forth to conquer the world. They started kicking out everyone else from Munster, burned all the books except the Bible, took all the doors off their hinges, started killing anyone who dissented, and declared war against the local Prince-Bishop, who besieged the city. This guy rode out naked on a horse to meet the bishop's army alone. (Actually had a 12 man bodyguard but whatever.) The army butchered him and nailed his junk to the city gate. A handsome tailor took over the city as king and turned the place into a dress rehearsal for the Society Union and Nazi Germany but with forced polygamy, and led the people to temporary victory against the bishop's army when they breached the walls, who retreated and built a second wall around the city, and the space between the two walls soon filled with starving people trying to escape the city but already under a death sentence for heresy. Eventually the Prince-Bishop succeeded in retaking the city, everyone inside was slaughtered, and the three surviving leaders were captured and met much worse ends than the baker prophet. He's the reason why denominations descended from the Anabaptists are today mostly pacifists or law-abiding.

Attached: 4chan.gif (300x100, 22.36K)

bumpo

Why can't we protect us from ourselves?

The providence of God is in Heaven. Grace allows us to benefit and harm ourselves. The omnipotence of God is unknown among us. When anyone suffers, or anyone triumphs, it could be simply because God sought to punish or reward; because the way we use our authority allows us to reap what we sow.

Prithee it never kills us.

I'm not sure if this guy is in heaven.

Thanks for the lesson. No wonder the anabaptists were heavily disliked in general, not just because of theology.

Attached: 1314505767487.jpg (272x306, 43.05K)

There are so many things wrong with this sentence, it's actually impressive.

The failure of the Munster Rebellion and subsequent persecutions destroyed the radical wing of the Anabaptist movement. Surviving decendant groups of Anabaptism today like the Amish follow pacifism.

Alright, first of all, the progressive radicals were led by a wolf called Bernhard Rothmann. This guy was at first literally a trained Catholic. On January 23 1532 he was a Lutheran. On August 10 1532, Rothmann took over the Munster churches for the first time, and this time he was now against Luther and for Zwingli. On May 6 1533 Rothmann changed his view again, after some other political rabblerousers entered and set up camp in the city. It is by Rothmann that all of this happened, and he was a chameleon who was first Catholic, then he was Lutheran, then pedo-baptist Protestant, then Credobaptist all in the span of a few months.

Second, churches administering baptism correctly isn't a "movement." It's always been done. Third, churches that baptize correctly don't spawn denominations, which are by nature political movements; fourth, Anabaptist was originally a derogatory term used by pedo-baptist heretics back in the 5th century or earlier, it was not originally the name of a denomination of baptists.

Fifth, the mennonites at that time were an unrelated and earlier group of actual churches in Switzerland in the 1520s that were pacifist, and their confession was not influenced by the Munster rebellion, nor do the two historically have any connection except for being political offshoots. There existed many churches already practicing these things throughout Switzerland, Holland, Germany, England and Wales that predate both, and neither of these two historically late offshoots define the church. And lastly, being pacifist and being law-abiding are two different things.

So I guess all Baptists and the 300000 types of protestant are all invalid churches? *As a Catholic, their baptisms are considered valid.**
You didn't think that through. Did you?

You are either a brainlet baptist who believes in the Trail of Blood LARP, or a troll.
Either way, pic related.

Attached: download (1).jpg (230x219, 6.68K)

...

Is this why the Amish are so snooty and rude to non-amish (Or as they call them, English)?

I'm pretty sure the "aesthetic" clothing and deliberate air of distinction they put on is out of pride, and for the purpose of intentionally standing out in the crowd. No different than the age-old "man of the cloth" meme.

I have to agree. Their entire "shun family who aren't Amish" is quite horrific, and just screams cult.
Speaking of that false prophet… Why is it that every false prophet that comes up seems to demand Polygamy? Mohammed, the Anabaptist prophets, the Mormon prophet… They all call for polygamy.

Muh dick.

OK. Agree to disagree.

Satan needs to throw the false prophet some kind of bone. The entire world would be under Islam right now if Muslims didn't practice polygamy. Huge masses of unmarried young men are a great way to destroy and retard a civilization.

Excuse me what?

Attached: 0556f38fb053ec397c93083b972c89889ca1ce58775fa9a9cff4890e949d9567.gif (420x420, 9.37K)

gameo.org/index.php?title=Rothmann,_Bernhard_(ca._1495-_ca._1535)

Attached: munster2.png (885x670 198.01 KB, 630.87K)

Polygamy led to the decline and fall of the various Muslim empires and is a huge part of the reason why Muslim countries remain backwaters to this day. If Muslims practiced monogamy they would have taken over the world.

Everything you said is debatable, based on premises that I do not share. That is to say, opinions. This post accomplishes nothing. Agree to disagree.

No, they wouldn't. They will not prevail againts the church.

lol you think the church rules the world?

>not accepting the cool pope as your supreme leader

Why even live?