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.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:No, that is how it is translated because that is what it means, there is no other way to translate it.

That's what most religious groups say about their widely varying interpretations of various lines of their religious text.

Heck, there's even a notably sized sect of Christians who believe that "peacemakers" (as in, "blessed be the peacemakers, for they are the sons of God"-- those whom try to end wars and bring peace to the world) are actually merely tools of the anti-Christ whom will bring about the tribulations of the apocalypse. Because that's how they interpret specific lines of specific sections of their specific holy book while ignoring other specific lines/specific sections of the same holy book (as well as, like almost everyone, adding in aspects of secular culture into the mix).

Just saying, "there's only one way to interpret this" is often false...

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
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.

Its simple, "martyr" is a word which relates to a concept present in Christianity and Judaism. There are specific qualifications required to achieve martyrdom, and depending on the sort of Christian or Jew you're talking to they vary quite a bit, as does the nature of martyrdom itself.

Similarly, Shaheed is a word that denotes a concept present in Islam. What is required to be considered Shaheed will vary according to the Muslim you're speaking to (specifically, which religious obligations are relevant), though the specific nature of Shaheed itself does not vary nearly as widely (basically constituting a witness to some aspect of the divine).

Shaheed bears many similarities to the concept of martyr, but it is not the same thing, and so the words do not mean the same thing.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
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.

Its actually a very good example, because it illustrates the distinction I'm making. Allah is the name of God, but also the word for "God" (in the proper sense), which is why some Arabic speaking Christians refer to God as Allah. By comparison, the word God in English is not specifically relevant to YHWH, which is a proper name only.

Compare this to "martyr" which is a specific means of denoting a Judeo-Christian concept and, by convention, a means of denoting a general category of religious statuses; Shaheed among them.

Melissia In seven years you'll find that the term you're looking for is 'idiots' not 'fundamentalist chrisitians' Arguably The Amish are fundamentalist. Technichally Quakerism could be construed to be (its too sensible to be fundie IMHO)

In seven years people will realise that the left behind is fiction and about as well written and accurate as the DaVinci code!

It's sad that religous persection happens. I think that non opressive christianity would be pretty ok as in terms of established countries that are relatively stable they have their roots in christianity.

Phototoxin wrote:Melissia In seven years you'll find that the term you're looking for is 'idiots' not 'fundamentalist chrisitians'

No, I think I had the right word.

(P.S.: Left Behind was released in 1995, more than fifteen years ago, and people are still using it as if it were prophecy, because it was set in the "near future" despite having technology which was inferior to even the current technology at the time it was written and so people can claim that HEY IT APPLIES NOW!, and any time they're proven wrong, they'll move the timelines because of its near-future seting)

These are the same people who, when I say I'm a Chemistry major, look at me and get uncomfortable because they think science is anti-Christian. And they're not a tiny insignificant minority, either...

Tell me about it - I'm a biologist/geneticist (I guess o.O) and that makes some of them freak out.

dogma wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
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.

Its actually a very good example, because it illustrates the distinction I'm making. Allah is the name of God, but also the word for "God" (in the proper sense), which is why some Arabic speaking Christians refer to God as Allah. By comparison, the word God in English is not specifically relevant to YHWH, which is a proper name only.

Compare this to "martyr" which is a specific means of denoting a Judeo-Christian concept and, by convention, a means of denoting a general category of religious statuses; Shaheed among them.

Dogma, I dont think this is actually helping much.

I assume you are correct in that there are further definitions of the word martyr, I can concede that there may well be, if there are further definitions then I am not aware of them, neither is the majority of the populace. However of greater relevance is the flat fact that languages evolve, a good example is the word 'gay'. 'Gay' means happy and technically still does, so if you are happy you are 'gay'. Looking at fringe definitions of a word extant or not is excellent stuff for looking at the history and origins of a language, but for sticking to modern definitions for conversational purposes is fine. If evolved language is good enough for legislation documentation and governmental use (e.g. LGBT), its good enough for Dakka.

Which actually doesn't help your argument very much, because that definition of "gay" is a relatively new and localized phenomenon in western cultures. Just like two guys hugging or giving a kiss on the cheek is thought of as homoerotic here, while in other countries it's just the way friends greet.

What a word means in one culture isn't the same as what it means in another. I mean, just look at the difference between various food terms in the US and UK, to the point where a person from the US is often very confused when a UK foodie starts chatting about their hobby.

Melissia wrote:Which actually doesn't help your argument very much, because that definition of "gay" is a relatively new and localized phenomenon in western cultures. Just like two guys hugging or giving a kiss on the cheek is thought of as homoerotic here, while in other countries it's just the way friends greet.

No sorry. The new definition (?redefinition?) of 'gay' is clearly related to homesexual preferences, with a tendency to subdefine towards male homosexuality. Though females can be 'gay' the terms 'gay and lesbian' indicate a seperation.

Those societies, many of them actually western with a tendency towards male to male hugging and kissing refering to this as 'gay' would not be accurate fair or wise. Greece and Italy follow this culture, as does a lot of subgroups within societies that normally do not. For example Penetecostal churches in Europe and America may be very 'huggy' even if the demographic background makeup of the congregation would indicate otherwise.

Melissia wrote:
What a word means in one culture isn't the same as what it means in another. I mean, just look at the difference between various food terms in the US and UK, to the point where a person from the US is often very confused when a UK foodie starts chatting about their hobby.

Which is why I chose my example carefully. I am not aware of any cultural group that primarily uses the term 'gay' in its orginal meaning. Isolated English language scholars dont count. You still get a plurality of meaning for the word 'queer', however 'queer' already had muliutple uses, though one meaning. 'Queer' is an word that means strange, odd or out of place and has no direct comparison today. It can apply to an unknown unhealthy medical status, or to something appearing out of the ordinary. So it naturally evolved into a term which also refered to homosexuality. Which makes sense as this was during a time when homosexual people normally felt it necessary to conceal thier sexuality.
'Queer' retains this connection mainly because the word is considered derogatory to homosexuals and was never accepted for self definition.

Melissia wrote: Just like two guys hugging or giving a kiss on the cheek is thought of as homoerotic here, while in other countries it's just the way friends greet.

Nah, that's definitely full on gay that like.

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

Apart from obvious trolling may I ask what´s so wrong in doing this?
If I see a duck and it quacks like a duck I better damn call it for what it also is!

True not all religious people no matter faith are backward idiots but then again there are some pretty obvious red threads quacking around.
You don't see people in the Vatican or Italy or Poland being murdered on a more or less constant basis because they choose not to be christians.
You don't see mobs of frothing Irishmen burning people of other faiths to death.
You don't see Philippinos stoning women and hanging gays in todays age and time because some old book tells them they will be amply rewarded for doing so.
On the other hand you see mobs of egyptians, pakistanis etc etc killing people for turning away from islam.
Iran murdering people for choosing not to follow islam and one of the pillars of the religion of "peace and tolerance" is to kill muslims that choose to renounce their faith and if you happen to be gay then well, sucks to be you living in the more eh, "tolerant" parts of the world and I am not talking about Cleveland Ohio.

There, I said the obvious everybody already know inside, am I going to be put on vacation for it now?

The debate shouldnt be over how martyr-ish the guy is or isn't for being or not being killed over what fantasy he chooses to believe in but about how in the 20:eth century countries can still behave like gakking cave men and how we can't even point it out in the name of gakking political correctness.

What a word means in one culture isn't the same as what it means in another. I mean, just look at the difference between various food terms in the US and UK, to the point where a person from the US is often very confused when a UK foodie starts chatting about their hobby.

Modern day laws and common sense should override different meanings since things can be taken to extremes and often religion or "culture" (should mentioning religion be deemed to politically incorrect)
use this as excuses for the most vile things.
In our part of the world screwing or marrying a 9 year old is pretty much taboo whereas in other parts of the world, and big parts at that it is common practice and even venerated in religious terms.
Are we now going to excuse all "cultural" differences with the usual apologies or only some and in that case which ones, where should the line even be drawn when it comes to different "cultural" practices?

Is it ok to stone a woman to death because she had the audacity to be raped?
Ok to marry a 9 year old?
Hang a gay?
Murder a person for not wanting to believe in the same fantasy as you do?
Should we simply say it's ok since it's their "culture" and we should be oh so open minded about it?

Also as a little hint, it ain't Christian euro countries that practice these "cultural" little quirks...or was I to trolling now casting to big a blanket over "everybody"?

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

Hell, not even Shaheed requires death.

This started the entire things, and yes, it does require death to be a Shaheed (شهيد). You're also using the wrong word, the word you are looks for is Ishtishad (استشهاد).

Orlanth wrote:

dogma wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
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.

Its actually a very good example, because it illustrates the distinction I'm making. Allah is the name of God, but also the word for "God" (in the proper sense), which is why some Arabic speaking Christians refer to God as Allah. By comparison, the word God in English is not specifically relevant to YHWH, which is a proper name only.

Compare this to "martyr" which is a specific means of denoting a Judeo-Christian concept and, by convention, a means of denoting a general category of religious statuses; Shaheed among them.

Dogma, I dont think this is actually helping much.

I assume you are correct in that there are further definitions of the word martyr, I can concede that there may well be, if there are further definitions then I am not aware of them, neither is the majority of the populace. However of greater relevance is the flat fact that languages evolve, a good example is the word 'gay'. 'Gay' means happy and technically still does, so if you are happy you are 'gay'. Looking at fringe definitions of a word extant or not is excellent stuff for looking at the history and origins of a language, but for sticking to modern definitions for conversational purposes is fine. If evolved language is good enough for legislation documentation and governmental use (e.g. LGBT), its good enough for Dakka.

There are further definitions and further contexts for the word martyr in English, but not for شهيد . Every example Dogma has come back with in which he believes it can also mean witness I have provided the appropriate word in Arabic, which is not shaheed. In regards to the evolution of languages, this is such a specific term with such deep religious connotations that there have been no mutations in meaning. It is a purely Modern Standard Arabic word, derived directly from the Koran, and isn't bandied around, unlike the way 'gay' has been in America.

Melissia wrote:
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.

Melissa,
You are making some sweeping and mostly untrue generalizations.

You can be excused for your sweeping views of Fundamentalsim, as they are often portrayed as a monolithic set of people. In fact the term fundamentailsm has acquired such negative connotations that many Christians have rejected the in favor of "Evangelical" instead. However the truth is that Christian fundamentailsts come from a wide variety of denominations and are united only in their belief in the 5 fundamentals which also happen to be embraced (entirely or mostly) by most Christian faiths and denominations. They are:

The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

There are clearly many fundamentalists who may ascribe to all the maladys of racism, homophobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, that you mention, but it is by no means the majority. I think that such a diverse group of people deserve a more respectfull and nuanced analysis than the rants you are making.

Also, most Christians do not view Left Behind as Holy Prophecy. There are of course some who give it more creedence than it deserves -and many of them get more press than they deserve- but by no means most fundamentalists.

Melissia wrote:
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!
And this is something that apparently 40 million Americans believe in...

As you say, Dispensationalism is the theological position that different segments of the bible are intended for different times, but it is not exclusively or primarily the extended definition you put forth. There are extreme versions where folks have used it to remove even the sermon on the mount from modern application, and their are strains where folk have used it to predict specific dates to the end of the world. However these are by no means the most common streams of Dispensationalism, and are not the one that "40 million american's believe in."

Religious debates are not my thing and I'm not going to try and defend Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism) to you, but consider a bit of moderation before you make sweeping genealizations about vast groups of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Shocking but not surprising. Proof that Iran's leadership is motivated as much by a Big-Brother'esque need for control as the religious facade they hide thier system of government behind. Killing someone for apostasy gets too much bad press, so they try a pathetic attempt to get more sympanthy in the arab world by saying "He is a Zionist and has committed security-related crimes." and just for good measure they call him a "rapist".

It's a shame that so many Muslims and the Iranian people at large get associated with this kind of barbarism by a powerful minority.

[insert reasoned response to ignorance of the religious that will be ignored in favor of 'religion is evil' comments]

Just thought I'd save myself some time. No one seems to listen for more than a sentence anyway

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)

As I pointed out when DA2 first came out, there really aren't any good mages in the game bar the player character. It kind of sucks when DA2 wants you to feel sorry for the people being oppressed when they constantly turn to the dark side and kill people. Rather blatant failure at story telling. Every other quest in the game involves someone going blood mage while begging me to feel sorry for them

Eilif wrote:You are making some sweeping and mostly untrue generalizations.

No I'm not.

Or have you lived that life before? Scared that if someone finds out you're a gay man, you'll be beaten, hooked to the back of a car, and drug across miles and miles of road (or just beaten senseless in a bathroom somewhere)? Scared that if someone finds out you're a lesbian, you'll be raped because they think they can "fix" you? Scared that if anyone finds out you're not THEIR version of Christian, or even Christian at all (such as some of my Wiccan friends), they'll shun you and you'll be alone, with no friends and no family? Scared to show your head outside of your own community because of your skin color?

Because I know people like that.

I was one of them.

Even as an adult (or perhaps in some cases especially as one, as oftentimes it's more important who you know than what you can do) Christian fundamentalism still scares me to some extent, as these people, even if they avoid violence, can get hateful, spiteful, and angry over the most trivial of things if it disagrees with their petty little worldview, and they'll gladly make your life miserable for it. It's not every Christian, but then again, not every Christian is a fundamentalist-- for which I am very thankful.

LordofHats wrote:[insert reasoned response to ignorance of the religious that will be ignored in favor of 'religion is evil' comments]

All Religious people ever say is "your ignorant" and it is a gak non answer and a gak non defence.

It's the exact opposite.

I was a typical, baptized as a child but not really interested in church, happy to call myself "Christian" chap up until September the 11th. Then I started to educated myself. Throw in some human sacrifice in Burma, a few crusades, The Mountain Meadows massacre, some sneaky creationism dropped into little kids Science classes, a few more suicide bombings and a little bit of Catholic child rape and the jobs done.

Its the exact opposite.

Only the ignorant fail to get angry about the gak Religious people get up to.

Ignorance is bliss, I wasnt half this angry when I was 16.

right, heres my two cents,
1. Mels right, the 'left behind' series is complete gak, it has no basis in the bible.
2. this is very sad to hear about this pastor, but he is one of many. too many.
3. Those who profess christianity but are violent, ignorant, or are arrogant, are going directly agaisnt the most holy testements in the bible, which is the very centre of their faith.
4. coming from an athistic background, i was of the opinion that religion was a pile of rubbish. christians were self-righteous morons. however, i am now a christian and would hope that if i were in this pastors position i would go with thee faith and kindness he has.
5. christian fundilmentalism if it is ignorant, is not fundamentilsim. Jesus was kind and loving to those who killed him. christians should be as kind to those that disagree with them.
assultmarine

LordofHats wrote:[insert reasoned response to ignorance of the religious that will be ignored in favor of 'religion is evil' comments]

I'm certainly not saying religion is evil.

I'm saying extremism, such as Christian/Islamic fundamentalism, encourages people to do evil for the sake of their beliefs.


I mean ffs, the coin was termed to apply to those "ready to do battle for the fundamentals". It is not prefaced in peace and love, the very term "fundamentalism" has its origins in violence and remains shrouded in acts of violence today.

mattyrm wrote:Ignorance is bliss, I wasnt half this angry when I was 16.

See. Now we're both happy. I saved myself some time and you got to vent your matty rage

I'm certainly not saying religion is evil.

I didn't point it at anyone in particular just that group of people who do just that and are present in the thread. I'm tired of trying to explain things to people who would rather live in a fantasy of their own ignorance where everything religious is bad by default to feed their egos.

hmm, i would say that i am quite fundamental in my thinking. I believe the bible, in that, i believe there was a garden of eden, Jesus rose from the dead, etc. however there is a difference between fundamentalism and extremism. many people love violence. christians are called to peace, however war will not end until the world is made new. so some christians are called to fight. not in a 'holy war' or crusade but agaisnt evil and cruelty which diploamcy will not stop. thats what i believe at least.
assultmarine

assultmarine wrote:fundamentalism and extremism

I don't see any effective difference between the two.

Fundamentalists call for their members to fight and battle against anyone who disagrees with them, anyone who is different from them, anyone who would pass a law they don't like, etc. Occasionally the fight becomes a literal, physical, violent fight, and even when it isn't, people are still hurt as a result-- instead of the parable of the good Samaritan, we get "you're a sinner and you're going to burn in hell, and I'm going to make your life miserable before you get there too!" Sounds like extremism to me.

Melissia wrote:

assultmarine wrote:fundamentalism and extremism

I don't see any effective difference between the two.

Fundamentalism is when you tell a Christian you're an Atheist and they say "you're a sinner and you're going to burn in hell."

Extremism is when you're a practicing Christian in Iran and they say "We're going to chop your head off."

Admittedly, it's a pretty fine distinction.

Or have you lived that life before? Scared that if someone finds out you're a gay man, you'll be beaten, hooked to the back of a car, and drug across miles and miles of road (or just beaten senseless in a bathroom somewhere)? Scared that if someone finds out you're a lesbian, you'll be raped because they think they can "fix" you? Scared that if anyone finds out you're not THEIR version of Christian, or even Christian at all (such as some of my Wiccan friends), they'll shun you and you'll be alone, with no friends and no family? Scared to show your head outside of your own community because of your skin color?

True but the main difference is that the vile acts committed in the name of Christianity are not state sponsored while "others" are!
Meaning a perpetrator will be prosecuted and sentenced according to the law if he for example kills a gay person, no matter if it happens in Ireland or the Vatican.
Meanwhile you can stone people to death in islamic Iran and the state just cheers you on...
It's like 500 years backwards.

Pyriel- wrote:True but the main difference is that the vile acts committed in the name of Christianity are not state sponsored

For now. They were in the past-- not just the distant past, but quite recently-- and I can easily I can see it being done in the future, too.

Melissia wrote:No I'm not.

Or have you lived that life before? Scared that if someone finds out you're a gay man, you'll be beaten, hooked to the back of a car, and drug across miles and miles of road (or just beaten senseless in a bathroom somewhere)? Scared that if someone finds out you're a lesbian, you'll be raped because they think they can "fix" you? Scared that if anyone finds out you're not THEIR version of Christian, or even Christian at all (such as some of my Wiccan friends), they'll shun you and you'll be alone, with no friends and no family? Scared to show your head outside of your own community because of your skin color?

Because I know people like that.

I have known people like that too, and I am sure that you have very valid grievances against those people, but that doesn't make the broad stereotpye the truth.

As mentioned above, I don't like the term fundamentalist, but based on the 5 fundamentals I am one. Your description, doesn't describe me, or those select indiviuals in my circle of friends who happen to share my beliefs. I don't deny that the things you mentioned happen far too often, but a line should be drawn between those who happen to be "fundamentailsts" because of a set of religious beliefs and the "extremist fundamentalists" who practice hate through words and/or violence. Painting all with the same very broad brush does nothing to further understanding and co-existance, it just creates a bigger target for one's anger.

Melissia wrote:
I was one of them.

Even as an adult (or perhaps in some cases especially as one, as oftentimes it's more important who you know than what you can do) Christian fundamentalism still scares me to some extent, as these people, even if they avoid violence, can get hateful, spiteful, and angry over the most trivial of things if it disagrees with their petty little worldview, and they'll gladly make your life miserable for it. It's not every Christian, but then again, not every Christian is a fundamentalist-- for which I am very thankful.

The kind of behavior you mention is as wrong and abhorrent as you say. Yet not every, or even most, fundamentalist are violent, hatefull, spitefull, angry or petty.

Eilif wrote:a line should be drawn between those who happen to be "fundamentailsts" because of a set of religious beliefs and the "extremist fundamentalists"

It is drawn..

The former is a moderate, the latter is a fundamentalist. Militancy is pretty much tied into being a fundamentalist, even the langauge they use is militant. They "go battle" for the fundamentals, they "fight" for souls, they "attack" things they don't like, heretics/atheists/anyone they don't like "burns" in hell, etc. Even if they avoid outright violence, it's still a very militant attitude and as a result is very, VERY unpleasant for anyone who isn't a member, or who is targeted by them... especially if they have sway over positions of power and legal authority.

Melissia wrote:The former is a moderate, the latter is a fundamentalist. Militancy is pretty much tied into being a fundamentalist, even the langauge they use is militant. They "go battle" for the fundamentals, they "fight" for souls, they "attack" things they don't like, heretics/atheists/anyone they don't like "burns" in hell, etc. Even if they avoid outright violence, it's still a very militant attitude and as a result is very, VERY unpleasant for anyone who isn't a member, or who is targeted by them... especially if they have sway over positions of power and legal authority.

I don't know what your experience with fundamentalist are but the worst I get is an occasional chick tract or one saying they will pray for me. Which is all well and good because I love chick tracts and I am always grateful when someone thinks enough of a stranger to do something nice for them. Of course if you antagonize them they are going to react badly, but that is your fault not theirs.

I think that what we have here is a misuse of terms. Perhaps this scene from The West Wing episode "Isaac and Ishmael" can be of help by way of explaination.

JOSH
Thanks. Islamic extremist is to Islamic as "blank" is to Christianity.

Josh writes this on the board as he speaks it again to the kids.

JOSH
Islamic... extremist... is to... Islamic... as... "blank" is... to Christianity.

BOY 2
Christian Fundamentalists.

JOSH
No.

BOY 3
Jehovah's Witnesses?

JOSH
No. Guys, the Christian right may not be your cup of tea, but they're not blowing
stuff up. "Islamic extremist is to Islamic as "blank is to Christianity."

No one responds. Josh turns around and writes "KKK" on the dry erase board, and circles it.

JOSH
That's what we're talking about. It's the Klan, gone medieval and global. It couldn't have less to do with Islamic men and women of faith of whom there are millions upon millions. Muslims defend this country in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, National guard, police and fire departments...

Words matter. In describing Christians, "Fundamentalist" should refer to a set of beliefs. "Extremist" generally refers to a militant way in which those beliefs are carried out in life. It is important (and also fair) that when speaking of fundamentalists who are militant, hatefull, or violent, or verbally abusive, that one pair the the two words so as not to burden all fundamentalists with the actions of militant "fundamentalist extremists".

LordofHats wrote:[insert reasoned response to ignorance of the religious that will be ignored in favor of 'religion is evil' comments]

Just thought I'd save myself some time. No one seems to listen for more than a sentence anyway

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)

As I pointed out when DA2 first came out, there really aren't any good mages in the game bar the player character. It kind of sucks when DA2 wants you to feel sorry for the people being oppressed when they constantly turn to the dark side and kill people. Rather blatant failure at story telling. Every other quest in the game involves someone going blood mage while begging me to feel sorry for them

I always tried to defend DA2, but playing it a second time I really see the flaws, and I understand what some people were saying.

But I still hold my thoughts that people entirely overreacted when it first came out. Hell, my first playthrough, I ignored basically all the side-quests and missed out on recruiting like 2-3 characters..I missed more than half the game because of the time-warp bs.

Entirely off-topic, sorry.

Eilif wrote:Words matter. In describing Christians, "Fundamentalist" should refer to a set of beliefs.

Why? Its original definition was to separate the Christians willing "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals" from the rest.

So the term is birthed from militant language about battling and fighting, language of war. Even today it's STILL associated with militancy, as its ardent and well known supporters use similar language. I understand if you want to "rescue" the term or something, but that's a rather steep hill you're going to have to climb because it's been associated with militant language for almost a century now (the first publicly recorded use of it was in the 1920s. with the term being officially part of the English language in 1921).

Melissia wrote:

Eilif wrote:Words matter. In describing Christians, "Fundamentalist" should refer to a set of beliefs.

Why? Its original definition was to separate the Christians willing "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals" from the rest.

So the term is birthed from militant language about battling and fighting, language of war. Even today it's STILL associated with militancy, as its ardent and well known supporters use similar language. I understand if you want to "rescue" the term or something, but that's a rather steep hill you're going to have to climb because it's been associated with militant language for almost a century now (the first publicly recorded use of it was in the 1920s. with the term being officially part of the English language in 1921).

It is odd you don't seem to understand the use of parable, allegory, and symbol in the use of terms like Crusade yet mock the fundamentalist for doing the same thing with their scriptures.