Trying to defend Colofornian's offensiveness by arguing semantics to justify it? ... Really?
Again it's the logical fallacy of guilt by association. It's logically insulting as well as morally corrupt to engage in the practice.
You argue from a single weak point while ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Your point is convoluted as well. You dig down into the Greek and use part of a single definition and claim victory.
This is cafeteria logic at it's worst. Even the definition you chose uses the word corpse. Simply being baptized in the name of someone that is deceased has no commonality with the dark art of manipulating corpses.
Not to mention the shear silliness of trying to convince us all that the poster in question had no ill intent. Their intent was completely innocuous when ascribing the term necro to Latter-day Saints like me?
[Bluedragon]which as I have shown above isn't exactly true, but as I also spoke toward, is the culturally derived connotative association, although one perhaps a bit misused by fantasy-genre "hack" paper-back writers, at least a decade or so before Harry Potter came toddling along.
The real world definition is well known in literature long before your paperbacks came into existence. And now in film. Just like I said.
The world knows what "necro" means so don't try to spin it.
Necromancy(1972)
Fiction
The final chapter of The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien mentions the White Council driving the Necromancer, a guise of Sauron, from Dol Guldur, his stronghold in Mirkwood.
Anita Blake, main character of the Vampire Hunter series by Laurell K. Hamilton, is a necromancer, and there are numerous other mentions of necromancy.
The Old Kingdom series by Garth Nix is a cycle of novels centered around the practice of necromancy and its influence on the world of the living.
Being ineffective as a means of "reuniting body and soul once death has occurred", necromancy in the Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling is generally disparaged as "a branch of magic that has never worked." However, practitioners of the Dark Arts contrive to produce "vile substitutions" such as the reanimated corpses known as Inferi.
In the Japanese manga series Shaman King by Hiroyuki Takei, the character Johann Faust VIII is a self-taught necromancer who takes part in the Shaman Fight in order to gain the ability to bring his wife back from the dead.
A necromancer named Doll is featured amongst the core characters of ½ Prince, a series of Taiwanese novels by Yu Wo, later adapted into manhua format by Choi Hong Chong.
Nico di Angelo, a demigod character appearing in the Percy Jackson & the Olympians and The Heroes of Olympus series by Rick Riordan, wields various necromantic powers owing to his paternity by Hades, Greek god of the underworld.
Necromancy is prominent in the Skulduggery Pleasant series by Derek Landy.
Chloe Saunders, main character of the Darkest Powers trilogy by Kelley Armstrong, is a necromancer.
Kore wa Zombie Desu ka?, a series of Japanese light novels by Shinichi Kimura (which has also been adapted into manga and anime formats), features as its protagonist a zombie who was raised from the dead and befriended by a powerful necromancer.
Appearing in a series of short stories and novels by Jonathan L. Howard, the character Johannes Cabal is "a necromancer of some little infamy" who sold his soul in order to gain the ability to commune with and raise the dead.
The fourth installment of The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel by Michael Scott is entitled The Necromancer. The series, however, employs this term in a broader sense as one of several that refer to characters who are practitioners of magic, though with a darker connotation than the others.
And who can forget:
The Necromicon
Film and television
In the Cartoon Network animated series The Venture Bros., Dr. Byron Orpheus is referred to as a "necromancer extraordinaire", although he has been shown to command a broad range of mystical powers. He belongs to the Order of the Triad, a team of occult practitioners, and regularly collaborates with Team Venture.
In the fifth season episode "Just Rewards" of the WB series Angel, vampires Angel and Spike try to put a rogue necromancer named Magnus Hainsley out of commission. Their task is made much harder by the fact that they are both undead and therefore susceptible to Hainsley's power.
In the second season episode "Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things" of the CW series Supernatural, Sam and Dean Winchester are forced to intervene when the teaching assistant to a professor of Ancient Greek uses a necromantic ritual to bring the professor's daughter back to life after she dies in a car accident.
Necromantic rituals conducted by the former occupant of a house are largely to blame for the supernatural forces that plague its current owners in the 2009 horror film The Haunting in Connecticut.
In the fourth season of the HBO series True Blood, antagonist Marnie Stonebrook employs necromancy to cause herself to become possessed by the spirit of Antonia Gavilán de Logroño, a witch who was burned at the stake during the Spanish Inquisition. As she was dying, Antonia used her power to gain control over all nearby vampires and subsequently caused them to walk into the sunlight, killing themselves. Marnie desires the same ability to manipulate vampires like puppets.
In the fourth season episode "Lancelot du Lac" of the BBC series Merlin, Morgana uses necromancy to bring the knight Lancelot back from the dead in order to interfere with the pending marriage of King Arthur and Guinevere, thereby preventing Guinevere from becoming queen. Morgana herself wants to be the sole ruler of Camelot.
In the third season of the FX series American Horror Story: Coven, Misty Day (Lily Rabe) portrays a necromancer. Being persecuted after being discovered by bringing a bird back to life.
Games In Dungeons & Dragons, wizards can specialize in the school of necromancy and clerics can select death as their sphere or domain. Both accordingly gain access to spells that not only focus on death, decay, and the undead, but also various forms of life force manipulation, enabling them to heal or cause injury, cure or inflict disease, and perform resurrection.
Necromancers are a specific type of magic user in the Palladium Fantasy and Rifts role-playing games from Palladium Books. They wield a number of powers over death and the dead such as acquiring supernatural abilities by ingesting certain organs harvested from corpses and being able to merge severed limbs with their own bodies.
The necromancer is a character class in the video game Diablo II, released by Blizzard Entertainment. They can animate the dead, inflict curses, and use life-draining attacks.
It is also an Undead unit in Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, and there are named necromancers in World of Warcraft.
In The Battle for Wesnoth, an open source turn-based strategy game, players may advance their units as practitioners of the dark arts to the level of necromancer, thereby gaining "the terrible ability to awaken the dead with false life", among other arcane powers.
Necromancy can be learned by wizards of the School of Death in the massively multiplayer online role-playing game Wizard101 from KingsIsle Entertainment.
The necromancer is available as a profession in the Guild Wars competitive online role-playing game series from NCsoft. Able to drain life energy from their enemies, they also specialize in raising undead minions and casting curses.
In the Dungeon Management game, War for the Overworld, Necromancers appear as a unit which can raise Ghouls and Revenants.
The Character Lezard Valeth, from the video game series Valkyrie Profile, is a Necromancer.
In real world "Necro", "Necromancer", "Necromancy" is all the same.
Oh and I played a "Necro" in Everquest as well. Trying to argue that it just means "dead" is silly.
Trying to defend Colofornian's offensiveness by arguing semantics to justify it? ... Really?
It was the semantics which were being objected to by yourself in the first place, and still are. So yes, Really, for word usage was and still is(?) the issue at hand. I can't see how that aspect can be logically denied.
Again it's the logical fallacy of guilt by association. It's logically insulting as well as morally corrupt to engage in the practice.
Well now we are getting somewhere. It wasn't the word usage itself which was entirely inaccurate, but "guilt by association" aspect which was troubling?
What is the more logically insulting is to not acknowledge that your own initial definition was incorrect, for that definition relied not upon root and actual meanings, as I plainly enough demonstrated, and as additional links have been kindly provided by others, quite neutrally by one also, as in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3085963/posts?page=27#27.
Which leaves reactionary argument against the use of the phrase necro-baptism still inaccurate enough, for in modern English usage "necro" as prefix, most assuredly refers to "the dead" (which is what you were arguing against) any way one chooses to slice baptize it.
I did offer for usage; necro-baptism, by proxy, adding that last portion for greater precision. Why not take me up on that offer? What objection could still remain if it were to be spoken of in that manner?
As I have told a few others --- English is my native tongue. I shall not submit to demand concerning how I speak it, in regards to those whom seek to control my own free expression, although I am open to making some reasonable modification if case can be made that to do so is necessary towards greater accuracy. But if it's just part of some politics of the aggrieved, sans enough rationality to force change for reason of accuracy & truth, then I gotta' tell ya', forget it, I will not submit to whiny complaints, or someone's hurt feelings at expense of truth & clarity in course of free expression. In other words --- I shall not agree to allowing you (or most anyone other than God Himself) to unilaterally control the narrative. Got that? Good. Let's move on...
So far -- you have yet to make a convincing case that I should make any changes, other than having decided on my own to extend grace to add "by proxy" towards alleviating concern that the LDS practice routinely involves actual dead-tissue, non-living corpses be physically present and directly submerged in LDS water pools...
To get to the crux of the matter;
Does the LDS "baptize" persons now dead "by proxy", or not? That equals baptizing the dead, as regarding dead bodies themselves, yet in absentia, not being done just "verbally", but by necessity of the doctrinal practice itself, needing "a body" to submerse, would it not? Which in LDS theology and practice (though I will not admit to in efficaciousness, before God) makes the proxy, representative of the necro- as matter of fact.
This can be seen as part of the overall [so-called] LDS theology of themselves, that it is that particular "community" alone, in the persons of their "bishops" and so called "prophets" claiming for themselves being the Only True Church, with all others outside of their realm alleged to be entirely "apostate". Hence [I assume] the perceived need from within those bounds, beginning with J.Smith himself, of there being need for this doctrine of baptism of the dead by proxy --- since to this day it is alleged that it is they alone (Temple Mormons) who have the "authority" to rightfully and properly baptize. But in reaching beyond the living in this over-reach, they do in effect, reach into the realm of the dead. Necro, necro...
| It is one thing to pray concerning the dead, praying for those whom have passed on, first in thanksgiving of those persons having been created to have been among the living, and in loving remembrance of them; possibly praying then also in supplication to the Lord for those persons very souls, that those be with Him always, resurrected by His power to be with Him forever, entering into His realm by the power of His own blood sacrifice |
--- it is yet another thing to hold the view that this not be in no way possible for those not "Mormon" (and that the heavenly realm is, for lack of better term, "Mormonic", with persons there living much as persons do here on earth, procreating physically and naturally, per LDS theology/eschatology -- which sort of idea or thing is spoken explicitly against in the NT (At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven) with LDS officially holding doctrine that unless by the [alleged] power and "authority" of Mormons; persons not only living, but now "dead" too, be baptized by LDS authorities, in LDS Temples, either while alive, or when having already passed from life in this realm, unto [physical] death, they can in no wise enter into the kingdom (of God). What a tacked-on, big-time change in the theology/eschatology of Christ Himself LDS teachings are, for it is most certainly NOT any Mormon who has ever themselves baptized anyone with the Holy Ghost, for that portion is of the Lord's, alone. He holds Himself at limitation of the beck and call of no man, even as He can and does, in love and not inconsiderable humility, even towards us whom He has created, condescend to those of low estate... There is nothing in the NT which authorizes the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead by proxy (much less that only Mormon baptisms be valid or recognized by Him) but the
| former proffered description |
| one can find evidence for early, most primitive Christian mindset of, as best as I myself can here express that, from my own previous investigations. There was one small item which you missed, even as you repeated the charge, but have seemingly and curiously now changed the meaning by introduction of the word "innocuous", which etymology for can be found the bottom of reference page previously supplied to both you and I, and Colofornian too, by Alamo Girl; Not to mention the shear silliness of trying to convince us all that the poster in question had no ill intent. Their intent was completely innocuous when ascribing the term necro to Latter-day Saints like me?
with that item I speak of, being again the question; where precisely, what reply#, which comment did Colofornian make which ascribed the prefix or word necro- to you directly???. You need to answer that question, or drop the claim that you, yourself have had in some way, the term "necro-" ascribed directly to you. Though curiously...I would agree with the usage of "innocuous", that is, if necro-baptism by proxy was actually in some sense "kosher" -- but if that be the connection with yourself which provides as you put it, evidence of ill intent...
I mean...how are we to determine; how to divvy soup rations, until this point be better clarified? [8^) Oh and I played a "Necro" in Everquest as well. Trying to argue that it just means "dead" is silly.
Does Colofornian know you from there {Everquest]? Joking aside;
Trying to argue that necro- does not and cannot mean or refer to "the dead" in the context it was used, is what is beyond silly, for what are the LDS "baptisms" by proxy all about, but "baptism" of the dead, for the dead, in the dead's name [by proxy] --- unless one does this for living persons also, but again, in absentia? If there be something along lines of guilt by association in regards to your own [bodily] person in this, since I do not see stated evidence for the "necro-" be ascribed for yourself on this thread, are we to assume that you yourself have [bodily] taken part in these necro- baptisms, by proxy? If so, there is no demand from myself for you to identify if it were yourself [bodily] as the proxy, or as the baptizer, for we need not get personal when speaking of theological concerns. Yet still, if one takes it personal, then there is no cure, other than to in the future attempt to distance oneself, taking things at arms length, if at all possible. We were speaking of word usage, were we not?
And now for a musical selection, one I've linked to FR pages before. In this particular piece, there is one portion of Mr. Young's lyric which may seem troubling (and which he may have meant negatively, in original intent), yet it is true enough that Christ seemingly did not "deliver"...Himself...from the cross "right away", albeit He did rise bodily from the realm of the necro, and in my own experience, has most certainly by supernatural intervention delivered my own self from great bodily harm, if not certain death, "right away" (just at the last possible seeming moment) more than once...
|
|