Who Are The Xians? What Is Xmas?

And the answer is...drum roll please.If Christians percieve that it is derogatory, then it is your Christian duty to explain the origin and meaning of the term.It really is as simple as that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, it isn't. It's a greek letter used to abbreviate an English word that comes from the greek. If it weren't for greek you wouldn't even call him "Christ". But that's not your assertion. The assertion you have to prove is that it's being used with the intent to insult; not that you or others find it insulting. Moreover, those four individuals you refer to have absolutely no basis for concluding that it is insulting and demeaning, so we can basically reject your opinion outright. That question has been answered. Since the symbol is of Christian origin, and the majority of its use is by Christians, we can safely assume that they connote it positively, because it's idiotic to suggest that Christians are out to demean themselves. How many times do we have to tell you about how it is regarded before you get it? Your ignorance is like a brick wall, Buz. Tear down that wall!

That's false. You people have been shown that it can mean anything that the English X allows, including simple abreviation, or as an intent to slight or demean, or to X/cross out, et al, depending on both the intent of the user and of the perception of the reader, which intent is often revealed in the context of it's usage but not always. As Ben has so susinctly articulated and as I have argued, this English X can mean anything, including the Greek Chi to some, but not necessarily. The modern usage of it in the term Xian does not require that it applies to ancient Greek Chi. Furthermore, you have been shown that the fish symbol with the Greek word "fish" in it does not necessarily relate directly to the terms Xian and Xianity so therefore is a strawman relative to this thread.

---

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

Hi Faith. I really appreciate you coming to express your views on this! I was praying that you and others would do so. I don't know how much of the thread you have read but other gracious members have lent positive support, including Randman, who like you sees no problem with the usage of it as I do. Don't forget Proflex, who came on early, contributing some great arguments vs the positions of my counterparts. Mike the Whiz, as usual, is there in the time of need to lend sensible balance to the issues, including this one. Thanks much for Ben, Mangy Tiger and others who've been gracious and objective in the messages they have posted.Please understand, all, that the intent of this thread is not to chastize as much as it is to inform those who use it that there are folks who consider it as demeaning and as a means of slighting Christ, Christians and Christianity, somewhat in the same vein that ethnic groups and others regard denigrating usage of terms applicable to them. Understand also, that you who disagree and continue to use these terms will not be hounded by me about it, though I will consider you to be somewhat insensitive by doing so. If you, or my neighbor, for example uses it, that doesn't mean you can't be my friend. We can agree to disagree and still get along, can't we? The apostle Jude admonishes us to be "contenders of the faith, and that's what we do. Both Jesus and the apostles assured to all that those who do this and follow him, evangelizing and teaching his concepts and his salvation will be hated of all nations, ridiculed and looked upon with despite for doing so. Nevertheless, yes, we rejoice in the great hope in the resurrection and in the knowledge of the truth which we are so blessed with, sharing with Jesus and his apostles the contempt by unbelievers we receive for doing so.

---

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

Still waiting for you to actually substantiate a single use of the symbol to "cross out Jesus."

The problem is that there's almost nothing that you and your ilk don't consider "denigrating" to Christianity; any time that a store clerk wishes a customer of indeterminate religious belief a "Happy Holidays" - recognizing that there's quite a few holidays that occur during this time period - your kind considers that a slight, forgetting of course that people were celebrating a holiday at this time long before the birth of Christ.Any time a store pharmacist is required to do his job as required by law, by his contract, and by the terms of his licensure, and dispense medication that his own personal morality views as encouraging sexual deviancy, your kind considers that a slight - as though Christians have an innate right to tell others how to live that must be upheld at all costs.And, indeed, any time one's fellow Christians employ a term of art as shorthand, a term with a centuries-old tradition and no connotation whatsoever of insult, Buz actually has to invent an entire community of Christ-haters so that there's someone to slight him.Buz, like a lot of Christians, is addicted to righteous indignation. Nothing makes him feel better than to consider himself a hated but elite minority.It's a persecution complex, Buz. I suggest you seek help for that.

Mam, I've not called anyone a liar, as some of your friends here do to me when they think I'm mistaken on an issue at debate. Surely you know the difference in considering a statement as false or a member mistaken, but I don't respond by personal attacks charging that false claims or mistakes are lies. Who, btw, in this thread has been the most snippy and meanspirited in their responses? You need to have a close look and think about that.

I adressed this. Nobody listened. If you are going to conclude something about "Christians" then all of your premise must refer to ALL Christians. You cannot use "some" Christians to conclude something about "All" Christians.You are playing with the term "Christian", like it describes one perfect pack of guys who agree. It is an ambigious term as it incorporates a myriad of different belief systems.Think about how many people call themselves Christian. Most have extremely different rules.An example is that one sect will be J's witnesses, another sect will pray to Mary.Example of fallacy:Some apples in my basket are bad.
Therefore apples[in general], are bad.It has been posited that MANY Christians don't like the term. Even if some other Christians do not mind the term, how can you infer that "Christians" as a whole, are not demeaned, when atheists or Christians or anyone else uses the term?You cannot infer it. It's the same as black people who use the "N" term. Does black people's use of it mean that they are not demeaned when a white person uses it? Does it mean all black people use it?Yet What do you consider as a Christian origin?I consider it as being from the well spring of the commandments of Christ and his immediate apostles. Anything else, like catholicism, and paganistic values; post-dates a "Christian origin", and have nothing to do with Christ, IMHO.I only have one more thing to say;Let's say X is a truism.

ask buzsaw.

quote:

---

If you only used the X term for the violent frauds you'd at least make some sense, inserting an "X" denoting them.

---

quote:

---

We all know, for example the n word denotes blacks and that the J word denotes Japanese

---

quote:

---

Though, it is perceived by most as denoting Christ

---

he's seriously using it as a negative. i don't mean to make fun of him or anything. but it's clearly the same problem.

---

אָרַח

Well, then let me rephrase. It's idiotic to assume that a lot of Christians are out to denigrate themselves. Posited, but not proven. Some, but not many. There has yet to be a single example given of an atheist or anybody else using the term to denigrate Christians. Are you prepared to give an example?

us christians are well known for our poor self-esteem and flagelation.so no, i don't think it's idiotic to picture christians denigrating themselves. i think we do it all the time. it's part of the salvation ritual: we admit we're worthless, stupid, and evil, and deserve to die.

---

אָרַח

Sorry, I guess I overlooked much help you were receiving. I had noticed Mike the Wiz. Should have read more carefully.

That analogy doesn't work. The "n-word" was first used by white people specifically to demean black people. Black people have co-opted the word and use it to feel good about themselves, but it is still inappropriate for white people to use it because of the history of demeaning.The "X-word", on the other hand, was first used by Christians to describe themselves. It is totally appropriate because there simply is no connection between it and any intention to demean. Most Christians do not "mind" the word because it is their word. How can somebody demean you by calling you by your own name? If you object to being called "Xian" you are also objecting to being called "Christian".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

think about the word "jew" for a second. it comes from the hebrew name, judah (yehudah), and the people who lived there (yehudi). they call themselves that.but jewish people often consider it antisemitic when people call them "jews."beats the hell outta me as to why, but they do.

---

אָרַח

Cause it's often combined with dirty.But then even the full term Christian is sometimes seen, and in many cases rightly, as a derogitive description.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion