It’s commonly taught this way in the historical context of religious conquest and reformation, which may or may not be accurate for some population in some peri

It’s commonly taught this way in the historical context of religious conquest and reformation, which may or may not be accurate for some population in some period of time, but is probably a lazy approximation that historical populations were ignorant and simplistic. My understanding is limited, but specifically that the term is not commonly used today outside of certain traditional churches (I have been to some). I used it to invoke the historical imagination where one may consider their actions in the perspective of a larger timeline where someone else may be studying them. But it’s certainly touched a nerve and distracted from some of the points I was trying to make. Or perhaps it was so vapid that there’s nothing else to discuss. Either way, I’d like to know. You may notice this response as less apologetic than the first few times this accusation was levied. That doesn’t mean I regard it as any less accurate, but as I see it again, I try to address different aspects as there must have been something lacking to warrant repetition. One thing I’ve noticed is that none of the accusations have bothered to provide a specific correction. Perhaps you should consider starting with the assumption that people want to do well by you and improve their understanding of the things that are important to you, but cannot do that without your participation.