Who Are The Xians? What Is Xmas?

buzsaw responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

That, however doesn't mean that the English letter X in Xian has to refer to the Greek Chi.

---

Yes, it does.That's because when you see the word "Xian," the sound that comes out of your mouth is "krist-chin," not "ecks-ee-in." That can only happen if you have associated the symbol "X" with the word "Christ" and that can only happen if the "X" in that word is a reference to the Greek letter "X" and its use for centuries within the Christian church as an abbreviation for "Christ."

quote:

---

I still maintain that the average person does sees no connection with the Greek chi it Xian.

---

Then why do they say "krist-chin" when presented with that word and not "ecks-ee-in"? If they didn't understand the connection, wouldn't they not even say the word "Christ"? How can you not understand the connection between the abbreviation "X" and the word "Christ" if you are pronouncing "Xian" as "Christian"?

quote:

---

It's still a cheap shot referral to Christians.

---

Then why have Christians been using it for more than a thousand years and English-speaking Christians for nearly five hundred?Are you saying Christians are filled with self-loathing that they would develop and promote an insulting term for their own religion?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Well, we've proven that it does. Can you substantiate your claim that anti-Christians are using the letter "ecks" instead of the letter "chi" to knock the Jesus out? The "average person" thinks Walt Disney is in cryogenic storage and we've found WMD's in Iraq. The fact that the average person is fairly ignorant doesn't, to my mind, constitute an excuse for your own ignorance.You have yet to post a single instance of "Xian" being used to insult Christians. Can you give an example, or not?

Fair enough, but as to the larger point... if there were a symbol that could adequately represent the word "Christ" in your eyes, would you have a problem with someone visually depicting the concept of "Christian" with that symbol, followed by "ian"?

quote:

---

Main Entry: de·note
Pronunciation: di-'nOt, dE-
Function: transitive verb

​

1 : to serve as an indication of : BETOKEN

---

just like x=negative, de=negative. so he's probably thinking of "defame" or "denigrate."

---

אָרַח

Come on, this isn't hard. Here, let's do it this way, then you can call me stupid. No it doesn't. it doesn't HAVE to refer to the Greek Chi.For example, I didn't know anything about any of this before this thread. Before this thread, the X in Xian refered to a variable X, subsuming some set of Christian beliefs. I pronounced it "zian".The X in Xian doesn't have to refer to the Greek Chi. If people start using it to mean X as in "GONE" or something derogatory, it no longer refers to the Greek Chi. Even when people start understanding the written usage in a different way, the written word loses it's reference in the Greek chi. There's no necessary connection.That's language. Just like certain aspects of sign language used to be iconic, they lost their iconic reference over time and became arbitrary. It's common. Doesn't matter at all. It's all about how people understand things. It's not about sounds or spellings at all. It's about the mappings between sounds, spellings, and meaning. English is notorious for spelling not matching pronunciation. There's absolutely no necessary connection between pronunciation and spelling. This can be seen especially for borrowed words.How can you not understand the connection? Simple. You memorize the spelling, you memorize the pronunciation. There's no need for the extra step, the connection between spelling and pronunciation, or either of them and meaning. Are you saying that a word can't be used in a new way? That you can't take a word that was once considered acceptable and use it in a derogatory way?Here's an example I pulled out of my ass:Gook http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/gook.htmJust one way you can "hijack" the meaning of a word and use it for whatever purposes you want.

---

Sounds and meanings are arbitrary matches, based on usage and interpretation. Nothing more, nothing less. The history of a word can help you understand the historical meaning of a word, but doesn't specify any necessary present or future relationship. That relationship is determined only by the people who currently use the word.BenAbE: Regardless, I think this is all just silly. I like the approach Jar takes: if there's the perception of a problem, then let's talk about what needs to be done to address it. Complaining alone is meaningless.This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/12/12 10:25 PM

people often don't get the connection -- it's intuitive. how did buz know that "xian" meant "christian?" clearly, even in his mind, x = christ, whether or not he wants to admit it. otherwise, how would he know what to fill in the x with?language does change, and does lose its connections. and it HAS here, but people still know what it means. the meaning has not changed. but if i'm speaking korean, it's not a problem, is it? it's the context. if i apply to an asian PERSON instead, it's a racial slur. you can. you can use just about any word you want to be offensive, actually. i heard a few ways to deny the ascension of christ in yiddish on the radio today, none of which you could tell actually meant that. they were designed, literally, so that germans could understand the words but not the context.but that's not what buz was arguing. he was arguing that THE WORD ITSELF is derogatory, not the usage or context.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-13-2005 01:31 AM

---

אָרַח

There is no such thing as a separation between "the word itself" and usage or context. The meaning of a word IS it's usage in context. That's it. It's easy. You determine what "x" means by the usage of the word xian. x=christ. it's why the x was used at all that's not obvious. Nono. That's not a valid separation. Part of the meaning of a word has to do with the emotion it evokes. If it pisses people off and makes them feel alienated, taht's an essentail part of the meaning of the word.In other words, in this case, understanding WHY x was used to replace christ is an essential element of the meaning of the word. That drives a large part of the understanding of it's usage. Usage is a part of meaning.This is a cognitive perspective on language use. A much ... more complete picture than a lot of the lingusitic divisions out there. Fight the power! If I'm speaking Korean, and I use the word "gook" where i should use a person's name or a word meaning "korean person", i've used "gook" as a racial slur.It's not a great example, but... well, it's not a great example.

no no, i'm saying that he's talking about the actual letters, and deriving how it's used from that, forcing a particular usage on it. he's not concerned with how it's actually being used, but how it's being SPELLED. buz was saying that you could "x-out" anything. remember the "xgnostics" and the "xthiests" and the "xhists?"if i present you with "Xian," by that logic, how do you know i mean "christian" and not "pediatrician" or "physician" or "musician" or "mathematician" or "statistician?"i'm saying that we KNOW x=christ, and even buz knows that, otherwise we can't hope to understand that "xian" is even refering to christians and not something else entirely. right, sure, but what about "nigardly?" someone mentioned before that someone got fired over it, because someone else got offended because they didn't understand what the word meant and jumped to conclusions. does "nigardly" mean "like a nigger" if someone thinks it does? sure, but there it's a tradition borrowed from english, and you're using the word inappropriately. the CONTEXT is dictating the meaning.for instance, i can say "dyke" referring to something in the netherlands that prevent flooding, but if i call a woman that, it's offensive. i can talk about the litter that my bitch just threw, but i can't talk about my bitch throwing litter on the ground. i can talk about riding a jackass down the grand canyon, but i can't say the tour guide was a jackass.the word itself really has nothing to do with it.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-13-2005 03:10 AM

---

אָרַח

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

But to others, it simply offends them.

---

Let me see if I understand this: A Christian is offended by a Christian symbol? That makes no sense. The use of "X" to mean "Christ" was invented by Christians, promulgated by Christians, kept alive as a tradition by Christians, and is currently used by Christians.For over a thousand years Christians have been using "X" as an abbreviation for "Christ."And now you come along and say that we should ignore the voices of billions of Christians because buzsaw is offended?I'm reminded of Emily Litella. If you don't recognize the reference, she was a character Gilda Radner used to play on Saturday Night Live during the "Weekend Update" segment. She was continually misunderstanding a phrase. For example, she would come on to give an editorial about how she didn't understand why so many people were so upset about seeing "violins" on television. They were even saying that we should keep children from seeing "violins" on television. How are they supposed to be exposed to culture? "Violins" on television is a wonderful way to expose children to the arts!On and on and on until finally Jane Curtin would have to interrupt to tell her that the topic was "violence," not "violins.""Oh. Well, that's different. Nevermind."It seems that buzsaw can't handle that last step. Upon being shown that everything he thinks that "X" stands for is completely wrong, upon being shown that it is a deeply Christian symbol and has been so for well over a thousand years, including nearly the last five hundred in English alone, he seems to be completely adamant in his claim that it can't possibly be true. He knows what it means. He is the ultimate arbiter. Screw the billions of Christians who came before him and have understood what it means. None of them ever existed. It was a term invented by those atheists or at the very least those "fake" Christians to insult the "real" Christians.It is akin to a Muslim being upset at the various abbreviations used after the major religious figures names (SWT, SAW, AS, RA) because they abbreviate the name of Allah and are nothing more than someone being lazy and even pathetically glib. You can tell they don't really believe because they gloss over the blessing with a yadda-yadda abbreviation.Never mind that that has been Muslim tradition for centuries.You would agree that someone who thinks that "Allah (SWT)" is an insult to Allah and should have been written as "Allah, Subhana Wa Tala," is someone who doesn't understand his own religion's history, right?So why are you letting buzsaw off the hook?For over a thousand years, billions of Christians have promulgated the use of X as an abbreviation for Christ. Why does buzsaw get to tell them that they've all been insulting their own religion?

quote:

---

Perhaps I was wrong about where the offense comes from specifically.

---

But there is no offense. How can a Christian symbol for Christ be offensive to Christianity?Do you not see the point being made? It isn't a question of perception or the appearance of impropriety. The community of Christians for over a thousand years has determined that X is an abbreviation for Christ. By what justification does buzsaw get to claim that they were all wrong? Atheists did not invent the abbreviation. "Fake" Christians didn't do it. "Real" Christians did. It's all over the iconography.If you can't trust Christians to tell you what that X really means, who can you trust? Buzsaw? Who died and made him god?

quote:

---

Really, there's a third choice, that you are both right.

---

Nope. We are right. Buzsaw is wrong.That doesn't discount the fact that buzsaw feels offended (assuming he is being sincere). However, the source of his problem is his own ignorance. The origin and use and history of that symbol is literally not what he thinks it is. That he feels it is a secular "crossing out of Christ" is irrelevant.Reality shows us that it is not.Therefore, he needs to get over himself, recognize his mistake, and follow the sage advice of Emily Litella:Oh. Well, that's different. Nevermind.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

What concerns him is the slighting attitude that is so often behind it

---

Huh? How can a Christian symbol used by billions of Christians for over a thousand years be "slighting"? Are you saying Christians insult themselves?

quote:

---

and the fact that it is read as a slight by many Christians.

---

But that's because they don't know their own religion. When you walk into a church and see "XC" on the icons, the XP cross symbology, etc., etc., do you accuse the builders of the church of slighting Christianity?No?Then why are you so upset over a deeply Christian symbol being used properly?Does it not occur to you that the reason buzsaw is offended is because he has misread the word? That he doesn't know this particular symbol and has misinterpreted it?Is that really such an impossibility? It is impossible that buzsaw simply made a mistake? He's perfect and never makes an error?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

arachnophilia responds to me responding to buzsaw (yes, I really think I need to include the entire context here...please bear with me):

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Though, it is perceived by most as denoting Christ

---

​

Wait a minute...I thought you were claiming that it wasn't.

---

​

Main Entry: de·note
Pronunciation: di-'nOt, dE-
Function: transitive verb
1 : to serve as an indication of : BETOKEN

​

just like x=negative, de=negative. so he's probably thinking of "defame" or "denigrate."

---

Please, please tell me you were making a witty one here. Tell me that you're not seriously claiming that somebody thinks that the word "denote" is a negative term rather than, as you just quoted, a term meaning "indication of."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Ben responds to me:

quote:

---

No it doesn't. it doesn't HAVE to refer to the Greek Chi.

---

In every single example that has ever been given in this thread, yes, it does.If you are going to disingenuous and claim that somebody somewhere could be using the "X" in "Xian" to mean a "crossing out of Christ," then you would be trivially correct. Since the writer has command of his message and if he wants to use the X to mean a "crossing out of Christ," then that would be true.Can you find me an example of such a useage. So far, buzsaw has been unable to do so. He claims that if one does a Google search for Xian, one finds insulting references but I did exactly that and couldn't find one. And no, it's not because I am being disingenuous and simply looked through all the Chinese references ("Xian" is a province and a name.)

quote:

---

For example, I didn't know anything about any of this before this thread.

---

So that means your interpretation is what the author meant?If I say that children shouldn't be exposed to "violence" on television and you think I said that children shouldn't be exposed to "violins" on television, is that my fault? Did I really say that they shouldn't be exposed to "violins"? If we go back to the tape and show to you that I really didn't say what you thought I said, isn't the appropriate response for you to say, "Oh. Well, that's different. Nevermind"?

quote:

---

Before this thread, the X in Xian refered to a variable X, subsuming some set of Christian beliefs. I pronounced it "zian".

---

And you were wrong to do so. Is it impossible for you have made a huge mistake?For years, I thought the lyrics to the song were "Hush, hush. Keep it down, down. This is scary." Turns out the lyrics are, "Hush, hush. Keep it down now. Voices carry." Despite the fact that I had heard the song over and over, I had the lyrics wrong. I might whine about her diction, but the fault is entirely mine: She wasn't saying what I thought she was.

quote:

---

The X in Xian doesn't have to refer to the Greek Chi.

---

Yes, it does. There has yet to be an example given here where it doesn't mean "Christ." While it is naively and trivially true that somebody somewhere can use the "X" to mean something other than Christ, we have yet to see that anywhere here.

quote:

---

If people start using it to mean...

---

Wait just a parboiled second there.What do you mean "if"? Do you have any indication that this is at all common? Has anybody ever used that meaning here? Can you give us any examples of somebody doing something other than using "X" to mean "Christ"?No?Then what on earth are you complaining about? That somebody somewhere might throw an insult?

quote:

---

That's language.

---

Indeed, but you seem to be forgetting that communication is a two-way street. And sometimes, one of the parties involved has made an absolute and complete error. Because that mistake is total and all-encompassing, it must be discarded wholesale and cannot be salvaged in any way.She literally was not saying what I thought she was saying. For me to insist that my feelings and reactions to her words are legitimate and valid is to impose my error upon her.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's because when you see the word "Xian," the sound that comes out of your mouth is "krist-chin," not "ecks-ee-in."

---

​

Doesn't matter at all.

---

Incorrect. It is precisely what you need in order to determine the issue of your very next sentence: It's all about how people understand things.If the person writes X-I-A-N but says "Christian," then you know that he understands the "X" in "Xian" to mean "Christ." Why? Because he's pronouncing the letter "X" as "Christ" and therefore must mean "Christ." If he didn't mean it, he wouldn't have said it.

quote:

---

It's all about how people understand things. It's not about sounds or spellings at all. It's about the mappings between sounds, spellings, and meaning.

---

Huh? How on earth do you analyze the mapping between sounds and spelling and not come up with what people mean and thus what they understand? That's the entire point of communicative language. If someone writes "X" but says "Christ," then you know that they have mapped "X" to "Christ" and thus mean "Christ" when they write "X" and therefore understand that "X" means "Christ."

quote:

---

If they didn't understand the connection, wouldn't they not even say the word "Christ"?

---

But they do and they are.Therefore, what on earth are you complaining about? Somebody somewhere who isn't here and you don't know and have no evidence of might be insulting you? That is the problem? A figment of your imagination is taunting you?

quote:

---

English is notorious for spelling not matching pronunciation.

---

Precisely. "Xian" is pronounced "krist-chin," not "ecks-ee-in." Can you give me an example of anybody anywhere of any real importance saying that?

quote:

---

There's absolutely no necessary connection between pronunciation and spelling. This can be seen especially for borrowed words.

---

But it's borrowed from Christian tradition. If you can't use a deeply Christian symbol that Christians invented, propagated, and use when discussing Christians, what on earth is the point of them having created said symbol?

quote:

---

How can you not understand the connection? Simple. You memorize the spelling, you memorize the pronunciation. There's no need for the extra step, the connection between spelling and pronunciation, or either of them and meaning.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously saying that it's a phonetic, by-rote word that holds absolutely no meaning to the person using it? Despite the fact that he always says it at the appropriate time?There's a song by the Manhattan Transfer called "Capim." It's entirely in Portuguese. Brazilian Portuguese, at that. I've listened to it often enough and have seen the text of the lyrics so that I have a fairly accurate phonetic comprehension of the words that are being sung.I have no idea what they mean, though. If you were to ask me anything in Portuguese, I could not use any of my knowledge of those sounds to respond to you in any coherent matter. That's because even though I know the sounds and would understand the meaning of the words were they translated into English, I have absolutely no comprehension of how the sounds map to concepts. And thus, I am incapable of using those sounds in the appropriate place when making utterances.If, on the other hand, you find someone who uses a sound consistently at a certain grammatical point, always meaning the same thing by it when it is spoken, then you know that he has made a connection between that sound and that concept.Therefore, if you see someone who writes X-I-A-N but says "Christian" every single time, then you know that the connection is there and for you to accuse him of insulting you, claiming that he means "crossing out" rather than "Christ" is an absolute and complete error. He doesn't mean that and it is obvious to all but the most obstinate observer.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you saying Christians are filled with self-loathing that they would develop and promote an insulting term for their own religion?

---

​

Are you saying that a word can't be used in a new way?

---

Are you saying you have evidence that it is?No?Then what on earth are you complaining about? A figment of your imagination is taunting you?

quote:

---

Here's an example I pulled out of my ass:

​

Gook

---

Irrelevant. The word "gook" as a racial slur for Asians in general and Vietnamese in particular was not created by the Asians/Vietnamese to refer to themselves in a derogatory fashion. Therefore, there is a dichotomy between the term as it was used by the group that invented it and the term as it was used by those who co-opted it.The use of "X" as a substitute for "Christ" was invented by Christians, promulgated by Christians, and used by Christians to refer to themselves. There is no co-opting of terms here.If the Christians mean "Christ" when they use "X" and if the non-Christians mean "Christ" when they use "X," then what on earth is anybody complaining about? Do you have any evidence of anybody here using "X" as something other than a substitute for "Christ"?No?Then what on earth are you complaining about?

quote:

---

Just one way you can "hijack" the meaning of a word and use it for whatever purposes you want.

---

Do you have any evidence that this is the case with "Xian" and "Xmas"?No?Then what on earth are you complaining about?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Ben writes:

quote:

---

If it pisses people off and makes them feel alienated, taht's an essentail part of the meaning of the word.

---

But that angst and alienation is not legitimate. That doesn't deny the fact that they are pissed off and feel alienated. It simply means they have no legitimate reason to do so and when they find out that what they thought was being said was nothing like what was actually said, the only valid response is to say, "Oops. My mistake."One wonders if buzsaw is one of those people who cannot be happy unless he's in a snit. Despite the fact that everybody has told him that it doesn't mean what he thinks it means and despite the fact that he cannot come up with a single example of it meaning what he is claiming it to mean, he still insists that it does mean that.We can't find a single example of someone using the X as a "crossing out of Christ" and yet he's absolutely certain that that is what people mean by it.Are you claiming that he has a legitimate beef?It's the equivalent of someone running into the emergency room screaming that he's been shot in the head and despite a complete examination including X-rays and MRIs showing no wounds at all, insisting that he has a gaping head wound.Can you show us the example that buzsaw has been unable to provide? We can restrict ourselves to this forum since that was the original claim: Can you find anybody on this board using "Xian" as a "crossing out of Christ"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Ben is logically correct.How can we find an example of equivocation with the same spelling?'X' can mean many things. Like "wrong" and a tick mean "right". Or "do not".This could be used by atheists, as in "wrong religion". Or 'x' as a symbol in logic representing a predicate. In this way, this could mean Christianity where 'anything' goes. So many cryptic possibilitites. However, Christ can only mean one thing. That's the difference surely.The fact that I know many Christians who express disgruntlement at the use of the spelling, means that simply spelling it that way with a knowledge of this, means that the person who posits it, knows he causes offense. Like when Buz asked Crash not to use it, and Crash then used it.I'm not saying you're wrong about the actual official definition of what it means.I will argue that it's origin is post-Christian, and that catholicism is post-Christian. Christian origin, must mean Christ and his immediate apostles, IMHO.I see you have many indepth responses here. So, you don't have to respond to my post if you dn't want to, as I have endeavoured to speculate knowing I cannot prove it, yet I simply think that the probability of it being used, as an offense, is high. Even if the actual percentage is small.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-13-2005 09:35 AM

The X in Xian is an English X in the context of an English term in the English language. IT THEREFORE REPRESENTS AND CONVEYS TO MOST READERS OF IT AN ENGLISH X WHICH TO MOST HAS NO BEARING ON THE ANCIENT GREEK CHI AND THE FISH SYMBOL IN THEIR MINDS. IT IS THE CONCENSUS OF THE MORE ACTIVE BIBLICALIST CREATIONIST APOLOGISTS WHO CONSISTENTLY DEBATE FOR CREATIONISM AND BIBLICAL CREDIBILITY ON THIS BOARD THAT IT IS USED MOST OFTEN WITH A SLIGHTING AND DEMEANING CONNOTATION.As per the OP questions, the debate is not whether it is not a representive letter pertaining to Christ, but as to whether Christians in general regard it in a negative or positive connotone.
We all know, for example the n word denotes blacks and that the J word denotes Japanese, but that doesn't mean the usage of these terms is acceptable by the majority of blacks and Japanese orientals. This thread is not about how much anybody knows or an indebth study on ancient Greek symbols and letters which in the minds of most do not relate to Xian. How many times do I need to say this before some of you people get it. It's about how it, Xian, is regarded by most folks, especially practicing Christians.

---

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