Qaran

Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
It is a common abbreviation, and especially in my field. Did you not read the post you replied to?
It isn't a common abbreviation. Here is a list of common symbols for christianity and 'x' isn't one of them.

Christian symbolism - Wikipedia

A little honesty from YOU would be nice, as you stated it was incorrect when I proved otherwise (you completely ignored that part of my post didn't you?),
What exactly did you prove, eh? That oxford dictionary says samuel rogers used the word xian in his diary therefore it passes for common usage?

As I said, some honesty would be nice.

and you also stated that I said it was a 'commonly accepted word' when I did not.
eh?

I stated it was a common abbreviation
Yes, that is what you said and that is what I claimed you said.

and I did not for a moment think I needed to qualify that with 'in my field' because I might upset some over-sensitive pettifogger.
I think we have already established that X was never used as a symbol by the early christians to refer to themselves. The most common christian symbols are the crucifix, the chi-rho, the ichthys, the alpha and omega, the staurogram, etc. It's right there in the wiki article.

My mistake. I'll qualify everything I post to the 'nth' degree in future just in case you show up. ;)

Furthermore, I did note that it was derogatory sometimes when I found evidence to prove it is in existence, but that comes down to context which is not applicable to my field, as it is entirely neutral in my experience, as previously stated.
Sigh.

The early christians NEVER used X as a symbol to refer to themselves. According to you, the earliest use of X as a reference to christians was written by samuel rogers in his diary in the 17th century -- hardly ancient. And in your vain effort to prove it is in common usage, you came up with samuel rogers' diary and its derogatory use.

As a teacher of ancient history, you would have us believe that the early christians did use the symbol to refer to themselves. That is a bald-faced lie.

And when someone points out the lie, you call him petty and quarrelsome.

Shame on you.
 
Sep 2013
44,432
35,468
On a hill
Yes, I am familiar with the word.

Is there a point you wanted to make?
I was responding to your remark: As far as the english language is concerned, the word xian, as you understand it, isn't generally accepted.

In that context, the point becomes clear, dont you think.
 
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
I was responding to your remark: As far as the english language is concerned, the word xian, as you understand it, isn't generally accepted.

In that context, the point becomes clear, dont you think.
Are you suggesting that xmas is generally accepted? I studied in a catholic school. We were instructed to refrain from calling christmas 'xmas'.
 
Dec 2014
13,714
11,356
NWOHQ
It isn't a common abbreviation. Here is a list of common symbols for christianity and 'x' isn't one of them.

Christian symbolism - Wikipedia
It is in my field. Why can't this sink in?


What exactly did you prove, eh? That oxford dictionary says samuel rogers used the word xian in his diary therefore it passes for common usage?

As I said, some honesty would be nice.
Did you miss where it said it has been in usage since the 17th century? As I said, some honesty would be nice.


If you quote me, you should aim for some accuracy.

Yes, that is what you said and that is what I claimed you said.
If you quote me, you should aim for some accuracy.

I think we have already established that X was never used as a symbol by the early christians to refer to themselves. The most common christian symbols are the crucifix, the chi-rho, the ichthys, the alpha and omega, the staurogram, etc. It's right there in the wiki article.
That is immaterial to the usage in my field. Did I mention that it occurred in the extant primary source material? No, not once.

The early christians NEVER used X as a symbol to refer to themselves.
I never said they did. It is common in my field when discussing Christianity in papers, especially in footnotes. You are building a straw man here.

According to you, the earliest use of X as a reference to Christians [sic] was written by samuel rogers [sic] in his diary in the 17th century -- hardly ancient.
Agreed, I think you'd better review this exchange for accuracy. Did I EVER state that the term was used by the ancients themselves? No. You are building a straw man here.

And in your vain effort to prove it is in common usage, you came up with samuel rogers' [sic] diary and its derogatory use.
I demonstrated that the abbreviation has been in usage where you claimed it was false. A little honesty here would be nice. The derogatory use was only seen by some in certain contexts, or did you miss that too? Otherwise the term is neutral.

As a teacher of ancient history, you would have us believe that the early christians did use the symbol to refer to themselves. That is a bald-faced lie.
This is a straw man and it is you that is lying at this point. I never stated thus, and you should review the conversation for accuracy.

And when someone points out the lie, you call him petty and quarrelsome.

Shame on you.
Yes, you are a pettifogger and a liar with comprehension problems. Shame on you.

You'd best re-read my posts for comprehension and desist with this nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2013
17,867
15,503
Here

One might call hypocrisy an atrocity or sin of sorts, the same with denial of one's self, since it lacks humility and humility is deemed a virtue.

The founders of this nation had their own religion, but were well versed in religious atrocities and bloody wars for dominance even within the Christian religion.

The following, penned by James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", in essence, defines the intent and reasoning behind Amendment I and a reason to separate religion from the state (separation of church and state)

2.   "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people.4 The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves."

3.   "Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.5 We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
-
James Madison - from Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785

Founders Online: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. …

Kinda hard to believe how some could either forget, ignore, misinterpret, skew and spin the following into oblivion, but those who aren't blind (you and lots of others) can see how it is done by some and even their motivations for doing so.

Denial is not a river in Africa, yet there appear to be some "Christians" that float on denial as if it were the river in Africa.......

Ironically, that only hurts their "religion"........through its hypocrisy.....
 
Likes: Friday13
Dec 2014
13,714
11,356
NWOHQ
Are you suggesting that xmas is generally accepted?
Are you truly suggesting that it isn't? One sees the term all the time during the festive season, especially in retail signage. Have you missed this throughout your entire life?

I studied in a catholic school. We were instructed to refrain from calling christmas 'xmas'.
Who cares about what you were taught in Catholic school? One sees it all the time during the festive season and it is generally accepted.
 
Likes: Friday13
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
It is in my field. Why can't this sink in?
Then it would be a simple matter to point me to a credible source (in your field) that says what you are claiming here, wouldn't it?

Did you miss where it said it has been in usage since the 17th century? As I said, some honesty would be nice.
Samuel rogers' diary doesn't qualify as 'common usage' nor ancient history. Or is it your contention that it does?

If you quote me, you should aim for some accuracy.
As far as I'm concerned, I quoted you accurately.

If you quote me, you should aim for some accuracy.
Where exactly did I quote you inaccurately, hmmm?

That is immaterial to the usage in my field. Did I mention that it occurred in the extant primary source material? No, not once.
It would be a simple matter to point me to a credible source in ancient history where the symbol X was used by christians to refer to themselves.

I never said they did. It is common in my field when discussing Christianity in papers, especially in footnotes. You are building a straw man here.
So, you are using an abbreviation or symbol to refer to people who never actually used that abbreviation or symbol to refer to themselves? But because you and your pals use it to footnote your papers, it is considered common usage. And because it is common usage in your field, any christian who is offended by your use of it in the public domain is merely ignorant.

Does that accurately sum up your point?

Agreed, I think you'd better review this exchange for accuracy. Did I EVER state that the term was used by the ancients themselves? No. You are building a straw man here.
You said:

"It's a common abbreviation, that is all. It is an abbreviation of the 'Chi-Rho' symbol which was itself an abbreviation used by early Christians (it is the first two Greek letters of the term 'Christ', which is a Greek word meaning 'the anointed one') . Do not take it as an insult an many are so wont to do owing to ignorance."

First, the chi-rho symbol is a topic of grade school catholic catechism. Having attended a catholic school, I am aware of the chi-rho symbol long before you.

Second, X is not a common abbreviation of the chi-rho symbol. Having attended a catholic school, it was pointed out to me that the use of the words xmas or xianity shows a lack of education hence should be avoided.

Third, some people here in this forum have felt offended by your use of the symbol, and rightly so, since X was never used by christians to refer to christ. The only reason it is 'common' is its use as a derogation -- as your offered source pointed out.

Where exactly did I misunderstand your post, eh?

I demonstrated that the abbreviation has been in usage where you claimed it was false.
Yes, in samuel rogers' diary. That doesn't qualify as common usage. It's common usage is due to its derogatory connotation.

A little honesty here would be nice. The derogatory use was only seen by some in certain contexts, or did you miss that too? Otherwise the term is neutral.
And if a person would not use a word to refer to himself, wouldn't that be a context for derogation? Some people have already expressed offense. Your reply is that they shouldn't be offended -- they are just ignorant.

This is a straw man and it is you that is lying at this point. I never stated thus, and you should review the conversation for accuracy.

Yes, you are a pettifogger and a liar with comprehension problems. Shame on you.

You'd best re-read my posts for comprehension and desist with this nonsense.
Is it not your argument that X is a common abbreviation of XP which is an abbreviation of 'christos' which the early christians used to refer to themselves -- hence offense is due to ignorance?

What exactly did I not comprehend, hmmmm?
 
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
Are you truly suggesting that it isn't? One sees the term all the time during the festive season, especially in retail signage. Have you missed this throughout your entire life?
I see it all the time. It is not generally accepted.

Who cares about what you were taught in Catholic school?
Uhmmm....that is where 'generally accepted' comes from?

duh?

One sees it all the time during the festive season and it is generally accepted.
Just because you see it all the time doesn't mean it is generally accepted, now, does it?

Bottom line -- some people here who know what they are talking about have expressed offense from your use of the word. But rather than refrain from using the word, you claim that they are ignorant.

Because if you really didn't mean it as an insult, you have a funny way of putting it.
 
Dec 2014
13,714
11,356
NWOHQ
Then it would be a simple matter to point me to a credible source (in your field) that says what you are claiming here, wouldn't it?
I recommend works by Seaby on the Numismatics of the period; John Julius Norwich on Byzantium and Ostrogorsky on The History of Byzantium. They'll do for a start, and some of this will be available at your local library. Let me know how you get on.

Samuel rogers' diary doesn't qualify as 'common usage' nor ancient history. Or is it your contention that it does?
Re-read the quote. It stated it had been in usage since that time. Did you miss that part? I think this is the second time I've told you this. How many times do I have to go over the same old ground before it will sink in?

As far as I'm concerned, I quoted you accurately.
I'm sure you believe thus.

Where exactly did I quote you inaccurately, hmmm?
Re-read the exchange. I said it was a 'common abbreviation' where you stated I said it was a 'common word'. I was using your own pettifoggery back at you ~ I thought you would have realised this by now. Oh well, I found it funny.

It would be a simple matter to point me to a credible source in ancient history where the symbol X was used by Christians to refer to themselves.
It's a shame I never said thus. Your straw man bullshit is rather entertaining.

So, you are using an abbreviation or symbol to refer to people who never actually used that abbreviation or symbol to refer to themselves?
In my papers in the field, and those of others yes. Is that ok with you? LOL

But because you and your pals use it to footnote your papers, it is considered common usage. And because it is common usage in your field, any christian who is offended by your use of it in the public domain is merely ignorant.
Did you forget the qualifier of the term being neutral? I believe the piece stated, "Although there is nothing offensive in the derivation of the term itself...". If it offends you that is your problem, not mine. If you choose to see it that way, then you are ignorant of the neutral nature of the term. I think you need to re-read the posted quote as you seem to be having terrible trouble understanding the simple nature of all this.

Does that accurately sum up your point?
No.

You said:

"It's a common abbreviation, that is all. It is an abbreviation of the 'Chi-Rho' symbol which was itself an abbreviation used by early Christians (it is the first two Greek letters of the term 'Christ', which is a Greek word meaning 'the anointed one') . Do not take it as an insult an many are so wont to do owing to ignorance."
I did indeed. The Chi-Rho was used by early Christians, and owing to the neutral nature of the term, it is best not to be offended by it. If one 'chooses' to be offended, then one is ignorant of the neutral nature of the term. Is that plain enough for you?

First, the chi-rho [sic] symbol is a topic of grade school catholic [sic] catechism. Having attended a catholic [sic] school, I am aware of the chi-rho [sic] symbol long before you.
I began Catholic school in the late sixties and learned the symbolism, some Latin and how to interpret Roman numerals by Grade Five IIRC. Were you in school prior to Vatican II? The Nuns or Priests never expressed any concern over the substitution of 'X' for 'Christ' (not that it was an issue at that age I suppose). You don't seem to be doing very well here, do you? ;)

Second, X is not a common abbreviation of the chi-rho [sic] symbol. Having attended a catholic school, it was pointed out to me that the use of the words xmas or xianity shows a lack of education hence should be avoided.
Who cares what some Catholics say on the subject? Not me, and my teachers never mentioned this in any way (weird that). If some choose to take offence that's their problem and I really couldn't give a hoot, for the term is neutral. They must be snowflakes intent on looking for something to be offended by, if a simple abbreviation is going to cause so much upset, don't you think?

Third, some people here in this forum have felt offended by your use of the symbol, and rightly so, since X was never used by christians [sic] to refer to Christ.
No they haven't because I haven't used it on this forum. You really need to get some of this straight before you go on these rants. I was commenting to those who chose to take offence at what is basically a neutral term used by others. You're not very good at this, are you?

The only reason it is 'common' is its use as a derogation -- as your offered source pointed out.
Again, in certain contexts by certain people (whom wish to goad if one extrapolates from the text), and as the source pointed out, it is neutral. Your comprehension fails you here.

Where exactly did I misunderstand your post, eh?
Where do I begin?

Yes, in samuel rogers' diary. That doesn't qualify as common usage.
Did you miss the part where it stated it had been in use since then? I think you did. Hmmm....

It's common usage is due to its derogatory connotation.
So you believe. I, however, do not. Nor do I care what you think at this point, I'm just having fun reading your contortions.

And if a person would not use a word to refer to himself, wouldn't that be a context for derogation?
No that would not. Why would it be so? That does not follow. You seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding simple concepts here.

Some people have already expressed offense. Your reply is that they shouldn't be offended -- they are just ignorant.
Those who choose to view it as derogatory are ignorant of the neutral nature of the term.

Is it not your argument that X is a common abbreviation of XP which is an abbreviation of 'christos' which the early christians used to refer to themselves -- hence offense is due to ignorance?
No, see above.

What exactly did I not comprehend, hmmmm?
See above.
 
Last edited: