Who Are The Xians? What Is Xmas?

If you're referring to the modern English X in Xianity, no. Though, it is perceived by most as denoting Christ, nobody has documented that that X has to refer to the ancient Greek letter, CHI. The Greek CHI is the Greek initial for Christ. The English X is not. The English letter X as in the English term Xian is just that, an English X. If you insist on mingling the two languages in the term you would come up with CHIian, since the English rendering of the Greek X is CHI, not X. Now that's the gramatical semantics of the problem you people have with your strawman argument. However, the important thing as per the OP questions is not that stuff. That technical Greek stuff has no siginifance in the perception and understanding of the average Christian so as to holyfy and legitimatize this term. IT DOES NOT.This is a relatively new and emerging term in the public fora. It is becoming more prevalent relative to the secularizing of America and the anti-Christian sentiment that is emerging in the West. Likely other religions would not take it well if their prophet or sect were referred to by an English X. Neither should we. Call us Christians, if you please. If you don't, well that's how it will be and we can still be friends. Nevertheless, you have now been put on notice that at least four of the minority view here do not regard it as a favorable term by Christians.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

buzhas the source for the X been explained to you?All that's need is yes or no.If you say no, then I can point you to the messages where it was explained. Perhaps you missed them.This message has been edited by jar, 12-12-2005 04:07 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Buz, I have a serious question for you. If you saw the following visual stylization of the word "Christian", would you be offended? In other words, if a symbol that we could agree was intended to represent the word "Christ" was used in the place of the word "Christ" for the purpose of visual depiction, would that present a problem for you? Would you assume that the intent was derogatory?This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 12-12-2005 05:44 PM

I'm sorry, but that's false. Rendering the greek letter pronounced as "chi" in written english uses the symbol "X". It's a common enough usage, for instance the computer typesetting system developed by Don Knuth, TeX (pronounced, "tek"). That's the greek letter at the end, which is why it's said the way that it is. Yours isn't. That's not the letter "ecks." Xians. You got it.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-12-2005 06:32 PM

Words only mean anything by what they mean to people. If I use "Christian", as meaning son of God, and another man does, then that's what it becomes to us. . If a black man wants to be called a black man, do you call him a ni**er, insisting it means the same thing?The fact is that a black man might consider it an offensive term. So all you have to do is not use it. It's quite simple really.Even if the black man uses it, that won't justify a white man using it, nor would it mean white people don't use it for racial hate.[rain logic]All that it requires is that the person takes offense by it, for you to use it offensively, like you just have; as the recipient requested that you should not call him this term, which offends him.

Mike, Xian is pronounced Christian.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I sympathize Jar, for to you, it just means Christian as it always has, so you're innocent, which is fair enough. But to others, it simply offends them.Even because of the possibility of offense, we don't want to see the "X". The X has to go. Perhaps I was wrong about where the offense comes from specifically. As all we say now, is that the spelling offends, yet we still logically, have an offense. It just now resides in the spelling.Yet there's an offense, which is all that is required, IMHO.I'm just trying to figure this out objectively. I think in a way, your side is right to an extent, and Buz is right also. It's just that you guys either have it so that one person is right, and one wrong. Really, there's a third choice, that you are both right.I'll butt out now.

If a woman insists that you call her a "womyn", even though that term is pronounced exactly the same way in speech, and you're only ever talking, but not writing to her, don't you think that it's a little ridiculous to be accused of dropping the "Y" that it's impossible for you to say and impossible for her to detect in your speech?Buz is trying to draw a difference where none exists. "Xian" is pronounced the exact same way as "Christian", because they're two different written renderings of the exact same word. He just asked me to call him a Xian. Pronounced "Christian". So make up your mind, already. Do you want to be called Christians, or not?Buz takes offense from the "term" because Buz has a persecution complex. I'm under no obligation to tiptoe around that.

Your point is merely academic and really simply bait to a trap, and Buz knows it. The source of the X is not the point and he's refusing to play your game about that. What concerns him is the slighting attitude that is so often behind it, and the fact that it is read as a slight by many Christians.

My point is hardly academic.The question is whether or not the origin and meaning has been explained to him. If it has, then he is no longer ignorant of the meaning and his Christian duty is to now teach other Christians the origin and meaning.It is either that or remain willfully ignorant.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Come on, jar has a point. If it's used as slighting or read as slighting, there's two solutions. One is to be angry and upset. The other is education.Jar's simply advocating education as a way to a peaceful resolution.That's all.BenAbE: P.S. Hi Faith, nice to see you This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/12/12 06:46 PM

So turn the other cheek, as your Christ commanded, and get over it. I don't remember Jesus throwing a bitch-fit about being nailed to the cross. Seems like the least you and Buz can do is get over yourselves, since you claim to follow his example.That's not atheist anger, by the way - that's something I heard from a nun in Catholic school.

No, jar does not have a point. If the common use of the X these days is to slight Christians then it doesn't matter one bit that it was originated by Greek-speaking Christians, and to "educate" Christians that it "really" has a harmless origin and therefore they shouldn't take it as a slight, even though they know very well that it is one, would simply be a deception. This is what Buz is avoiding falling for.Hi to you too Ben.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-12-2005 09:51 PM

I'm not complaining about people insulting Christians. Insult away. I'm merely explaining what Buz is dealing with in the deceptively "helpful" maneuvers jar is engaging in.

OK, let me try:Here's a solution: why don't we teach people (everybody) the true meaning of the "X" in Xmas--Christians and non-christians alike. Those who are using it to slight would feel idiotic to continue using a non-slighting slighting word. Those who felt slighted could simply laugh at the ignorant who are trying to slight them.Now,Is there another solution? Or are we people that simply complain without offering solutions?I like people that only complain in order to find solutions. At least that's what my mom taught me, and it works well for me.That's why I hate philosophy.Ben