Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here is a blog detailing the events and further links to stories regarding a Christian Pastor living in Iran who will probably die due to allegations he converted away from Islam-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/religious-right-now/post/working-to-save-the-life-of-a-christian-pastor-in-iran/2011/09/30/gIQApnLd9K_blog.html

Religion: Killing people since fiction was first invented.

And people wonder why I prefer a French style separation of church and state.

Bless the Martyr.

Both Christianity and Islam grow stronger from the blood of martyrs. You would think a theocracy like Iran would appreciate that concept and realize that by martyring Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani they only make Christianity in Iran stronger. If the end goal is to oppress Christianity in Iran it would be more logical and effective to imprison Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani until some other nation takes him in, and then banish him from Iran. Killing him is just plain stupid, but this is Iran we are talking about and I am attempting to apply logic to a theocracy.

Good news, the more gak like this happens, the more people start agreeing with Matty.

[Witty comment about ignorance/Crusades/Frazzled/Terrorists]

It shows a difference.

A real martyr is someone who will not relinquish on their faith even unto death.

A fake martyr is someone who will kill others and themselves to make a point that they are not going away.

Its a sad tale but Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, knows where he is going, but doesnt want to drag screaming victims along on his journey. I hope he is freed soon, it will be the smart decision for Iran. I hope he gets to spend many good years here before he goes to God, but if he goes home sooner it is not the Iranian 'justice' system that will have the last say in the matter.

mattyrm wrote: Good news, the more gak like this happens, the more people start agreeing with Matty.

Religion is absolutely moronic in anything but a private context, I agree.

Warchylde wrote:People: Killing people since ... ever.

Fixed that for you.

Dark Scipio wrote:

Warchylde wrote:Religion: Giving people a reason to kill and feel good about it.

Fixed that for you.

Double fixed.

I'm pretty sure if I made an "Islam: The Religion of Peace" gag I'd get banned, so I won't.



Yeah, I said it ironically so I think I'm safe (/Palpatine).

Orlanth wrote:It shows a difference.

A real martyr is someone who will not relinquish on their faith even unto death.

A fake martyr is someone who will kill others and themselves to make a point that they are not going away.

That's, quite honestly, a very limited understanding of martyrdom; which doesn't necessarily require death.

Hell, not even Shaheed requires death.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19474_4-idiots-who-show-up-wherever-religion-discussed-online.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage

This came to my attention soon after reading this thread.

Coincidence, or divine intervention? You be the judge.

DISCLAIMER: This link contains some naughty language. If this offends you, by all means, feel free not to click it.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:It shows a difference.

A real martyr is someone who will not relinquish on their faith even unto death.

A fake martyr is someone who will kill others and themselves to make a point that they are not going away.

That's, quite honestly, a very limited understanding of martyrdom; which doesn't necessarily require death.

Hell, not even Shaheed requires death.

Martyrdom as a term involves a self-sacrificial death, or at the least a great suffering well beyond what is normally to be expected. Perhaps you are refering to the words of Paul in Romans 12:

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Poetically any form of relgious self-sacrifice is martyrdom, but martyrdom actually only occurs as a result of persecution. Actually choosing to suffer for a relgion where no opponent is forcing suffering upon one is just relgiousity, not martyrdom. So for example self-flagelation is not martyrdom, but being flogged for not renouncing a faith is an act of martyrdom.

Monster Rain wrote:http://www.cracked.com/article_19474_4-idiots-who-show-up-wherever-religion-discussed-online.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage

This came to my attention soon after reading this thread.

Coincidence, or divine intervention? You be the judge.

DISCLAIMER: This link contains some naughty language. If this offends you, by all means, feel free not to click it.

After reading this, I realized I was the fourth guy. That made me feel good inside. Is that bad?

Orlanth wrote:
Martyrdom as a term involves a self-sacrificial death, or at the least a great suffering well beyond what is normally to be expected. Perhaps you are refering to the words of Paul in Romans 12:

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Poetically any form of relgious self-sacrifice is martyrdom, but martyrdom actually only occurs as a result of persecution. Actually choosing to suffer for a relgion where no opponent is forcing suffering upon one is just relgiousity, not martyrdom. So for example self-flagelation is not martyrdom, but being flogged for not renouncing a faith is an act of martyrdom.

No, that's your definition of martyrdom, and it is commonly accepted, but not the only legitimate one. Martyrdom minimally entails the mere bearing of witness, and you see this carried in a lot in Eastern Orthodoxy. It gets even messier when you start thinking about any intersection of Christianity and Islam, because Shaheed doesn't look much at all like Martyrdom.

You are however, correct, that suicide bombing is not necessarily Shaheed (that's what I believe your point was).

Let's not troll the forum with blanket inflammatory statements about religion and religious people.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:It shows a difference.

A real martyr is someone who will not relinquish on their faith even unto death.

A fake martyr is someone who will kill others and themselves to make a point that they are not going away.

That's, quite honestly, a very limited understanding of martyrdom; which doesn't necessarily require death.

Hell, not even Shaheed requires death.

You're incorrect in that. Shaheed شهيد which is the 10th measure active participle from استشهد, means martyr and in Arabic refers to someone who dies for their faith. It's also widely used by more conservative Arabic media for people who die by the hand of an oppressor, mainly Israel.

What you're confusing it with is شاهد which is the 1st measure active participle, from شهد, which means witness both the religious sense and otherwise.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
You're incorrect in that. Shaheed شهيد which is the 10th measure active participle from استشهد, means martyr..

No, it doesn't, it means Shaheed.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
...and in Arabic refers to someone who dies for their faith.

Or bears witness to a transaction of coin.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
What you're confusing it with is شاهد which is the 1st measure active participle, from شهد, which means witness both the religious sense and otherwise.

When transliterated, there is no difference as you've noted.

Iran changed their minds now he is a rapist and accused of "security related crimes.

dogma wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
You're incorrect in that. Shaheed شهيد which is the 10th measure active participle from استشهد, means martyr..

No, it doesn't, it means Shaheed.

It's the active participle of the 10th measure, which is causative intensive reflexive, of to witness, which in Arabic according to the Hans-Wehr Dictionary and every other source and context I've come across, is martyr.

dogma wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
...and in Arabic refers to someone who dies for their faith.

Or bears witness to a transaction of coin.

No. That is Shahed (شاهد ) not Shaheed (شهيد martyr).

dogma wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
What you're confusing it with is which is the 1st measure active participle, from شهد, which means witness both the religious sense and otherwise.

When transliterated, there is no difference as you've noted.

I said nothing of the sort, please don't put words in my mouth. Shaheed (شهيد martyr) comes from the same trilateral root but different verb than Shahed (شاهد ). The difference between the first and second is the third character in the first word, a yeh, which produces a long 'e' sound in this case, and the second letter in the second example, an alif, which produces a long 'a' sound. I can go into the different diacritics if you'd like.

If you'd like to explore the differences in meaning between the two this handy little chart will help.
http://pdfcast.org/pdf/10-arabic-measures

*edited for spelling

Dice Monkey wrote:Iran changed their minds now he is a rapist and accused of "security related crimes.

Lol, I just realized how far back Iran is in the grand scheme of the World.

I was playing Dragon Age 2 recently, and it has the big backstory about the Templars hunting the Mages (who are called Apostates, or Rogue Wizards)

Just made me laugh how they can just use Religion to conceal how corrupt they are.

Karon wrote:

I was playing Dragon Age 2 recently, and it has the big backstory about the Templars hunting the Mages (who are called Apostates, or Rogue Wizards)

Just made me laugh how they can just use Religion to conceal how corrupt they are.

Using your analogy, normally in most relgions if something is banned and there are actions against it there is at the root a fairly sound reason for the ban. Now of course there are exceptions, but those come from digressions from the core doctrine and not adherences to it.

So for example the condom ban in the RC church is completely unsupportable and illogical even by catholic standards, because it is completely unscriptural. Meanwhile a ban on women priests has some logic to it, though outdated.

Going back to your analogy, the Templars are persecuting unorthodox magi, not because they are corrupt but because they are doctrinaire. There are good reasons to fear and wish to control magi, such as their known history for using demonica magic corrupting the heavenly city and thus causing the Blight. Unchecked magers get up to all sorts of nastiness. The problems then become a case of the Templary getting overzealous and the reasons for the strictures being forgotten meaning more and more magi get placed on the hit list.
Consequently the Templary needs educating and reforming rather than abolishing. Back in the real world gak Islam needs to be handled the same way. that relgion is a fewc enturioes behind Christinaity so they should be getting their Reformation soon I hope.

Indeed. They have a reason for it, and they say they are for this and this, but its far from their actions.

Templars are there to contain the Magi, there to safeguard them, but in Kirkwall they are really just a bunch of racist thugs using their faith as a reason to murder what they are scared of due to not being educated about said Magi.

Oh what have I done.

No, I wouldn't say Islam is "behind" Christianity, rather, Islam has more power over the states where it dominates than Christianity currently has over the states where IT dominates.

Christian fundamentalists are no better than Islamic fundamentalists as far as giving a care about the rights of those who disagree with them. When Christianity becomes dominant, it's really a fething nightmare for anyone who's singled out for the crusade, as it were, regardless of who it is. Be it racism, homophobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, or the idea that the appallingly badly written and obnoxiously popular book series Left Behind is some kind of holy CHristian prophecy that will soon happen... instead of something that constantly contradicts its own religious sources and paints a more unflattering picture of Christians than most anti-Christian blogs manage to do.

Orlanth wrote:. Back in the real world gak Islam needs to be handled the same way. that relgion is a fewc enturioes behind Christinaity so they should be getting their Reformation soon I hope.

I doubt it will ever formal reformation because there is no centralized dogma or authority as there was in Christianity. basically you have 10 millions clerics preaching different things with no central cohesive point of reference. You see the same thing in the non-denominational churches, which vary from church to church and area to area.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
It's the active participle of the 10th measure, which is causative intensive reflexive, of to witness, which in Arabic according to the Hans-Wehr Dictionary and every other source and context I've come across, is martyr.

That is how its generally translated, but its not particularly accurate, its just a best fit sort of thing. Its sort of like the general concept of "god" in that, while there might be a basis for translation, there isn't much of one for comparison; so if you're talking about YHWH or Allah, you say YHWH or Allah, and not just God.

Dice Monkey wrote:
I doubt it will ever formal reformation because there is no centralized dogma or authority as there was in Christianity. basically you have 10 millions clerics preaching different things with no central cohesive point of reference. You see the same thing in the non-denominational churches, which vary from church to church and area to area.

Yep, though one could argue that the more nationalistic forms of Sunnism have at least some type of local hierarchy.

Dice Monkey wrote:

Orlanth wrote:. Back in the real world gak Islam needs to be handled the same way. that relgion is a fewc enturioes behind Christinaity so they should be getting their Reformation soon I hope.

I doubt it will ever formal reformation because there is no centralized dogma or authority as there was in Christianity. basically you have 10 millions clerics preaching different things with no central cohesive point of reference. You see the same thing in the non-denominational churches, which vary from church to church and area to area.

People mistake the term reform and think it means to make it more modern and more peaceful. reform can be a bad thing, returning the faith to a more violent position. We could be seeing reform now.

Dice Monkey wrote:You see the same thing in the non-denominational churches, which vary from church to church and area to area.

Yeah, and those tend to be the most extreme (though nto exclusively so).

I mean hell, we have things like Dispensationalism-- people arguing that lines in the bible apply to specific times. So "love thy neighbor" doesn't apply anymore, it was meant for a previous dispensation! But oh no, watch out! Revelations applies to modern day! In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world! *seven years later* In seven years, we'll see the end of the world!

And this is something that apparently 40 million Americans believe in...

dogma wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
It's the active participle of the 10th measure, which is causative intensive reflexive, of to witness, which in Arabic according to the Hans-Wehr Dictionary and every other source and context I've come across, is martyr.

That is how its generally translated, but its not particularly accurate, its just a best fit sort of thing. Its sort of like the general concept of "god" in that, while there might be a basis for translation, there isn't much of one for comparison; so if you're talking about YHWH or Allah, you say YHWH or Allah, and not just God.

No, that is how it is translated because that is what it means, there is no other way to translate it. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

That's a terrible example. There is a word in Arabic for a god (إله), but they use Allah because it is the name of God, and we use it because it is an easy cognate and specific.