Qaran

Dec 2014
13,183
10,648
NWOHQ
I see it all the time. It is not generally accepted.
By you. Noted. Now do tell me why I should care?

Uhmmm....that is where 'generally accepted' comes from?

duh?
Do you get this upset when you walk into a shop displaying signs that state thus? If not, then you accept it.

D'uh?

Just because you see it all the time doesn't mean it is generally accepted, now, does it?
I love this nit-picking of yours ~ it's become quite funny. It is generally accepted by the public or it would fall out of use, would it not?

D'uh.

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.
If they have been offended 'by my use' then they haven't read my posts. You do love these straw men, don't you? Why are you lying? Your Catholic teachers would take a dim view of this. Tsk, tsk.

Because if you really didn't mean it as an insult, you have a funny way of putting it.
I don't use it at all because some people go 'full snowflake' when they read it for some reason. You really need to have a look at your poor comprehension, and your propensity to building straw man arguments. May I also suggest some anger management while you're there? If one is going to employ ad hominem attacks in debate, one should at least check for accuracy, don't you think?

If you're going to lie about me, you really need to try a little harder. The Bible states, "thou shalt not bear false witness", so why are you so naughty? Tsk, tsk.

LOLOL

See you soon and we'll go around the same bullshit arguments from you again. ;)

I do so love this thread.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
It is amusing to see you fart dust trying to deny what your own words clearly mean.

"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."

Is there a context where being called ignorant is not an insult?

duh?

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.
Link?

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?
The proof of usage being samuel rogers' diary. Doesn't make it common, now, does it? Do keep up.

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.
XP is an abbreviation. X, according to you, is an abbreviation of the abbreviation XP. 'Xian' is a word, using the abbreviation X to replace 'christ'.

You re-read the exchange.

It's a shame I never said thus. Your straw man bullshit is rather entertaining.
"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".

Your dishonesty is astounding!

In my papers in the field, and those of others yes. Is that ok with you?
Anything published and posted in the internet?

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.
Your intention to offend is undeniable given your own words.

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?
There you go. You are making the argument that the early christians used the symbol to refer to themselves -- despite your dishonest denials to the contrary.

duh?

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? ;)
I was born 10 years after vatican 2. The documents accruing from this ecumencial council is a matter of record so I find your question irrelevant.

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?
Calling someone ignorant for seeing it other than neutral is an insult.

duh?

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?
But you just admitted in this forum that you use it to footnote your papers.

duh?

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.
Precisely!

You wished to goad by calling christians ignorant for something as common as the chi-rho symbol.

Where do I begin?
How about beginning with what you said?

Did you miss the part where it stated it had been in use since then? I think you did. Hmmm....
I didn't miss anything. Samuel rogers' diary is the purported basis for the word's usage in 1634.

duh?

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.
Then you haven't understood the sources you are offering here.

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.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/pejorati/#H2

e. Appropriation
Some pejoratives are used systematically to accomplish aims other than those for which they were designed. Appropriation refers to the various systematic ways in which agents repurpose pejorative language. For certain slurs, the target group takes over the term to transform its meaning to lessen or to eliminate its derogatory force. This is one variety of appropriation known as linguistic reclamation(Brontsema 2004). The term ‘queer’ is a paradigm case. Although ‘queer’ once derogated those who engaged in sexually abnormal behavior, the term ‘queer’ now contains little to no derogatory force as a result of homosexual women and men appropriating the term. Now, non-prejudiced speakers can use the term ‘queer’ in a various contexts. For instance, phrases such as ‘queer studies program’ and ‘queer theory’ do not derogate homosexuals. In contrast, the slur ‘nigger’ -often marked by an alternative spelling ‘nigga’- has been appropriated more exclusively by the target group, and is often used as a means of expressing camaraderie between group members (Saka 2007, p145). Barring a few rare exceptions, targeted speakers can use the term to refer to one another in a non-denigrating way. Appropriated uses of ‘nigger’ are common in comedic performances and satire. The use of ‘nigger’ in a comedy bit designed to mock and criticize racism need not commit the speaker to racist attitudes (Richard 2008, p.12).

Clear?

Those who choose to view it as derogatory are ignorant of the neutral nature of the term.
Your post continues: "...Although there is nothing offensive in the derivation of the term itself, its informal nature and use among skeptics and atheists sometimes makes the form seem dismissive or offensive to Christians.

"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."

see above
 
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
By you. Noted. Now do tell me why I should care?
Because you asked.

duh?

Do you get this upset when you walk into a shop displaying signs that state thus? If not, then you accept it.

D'uh?
I'm correcting your etymology. X has nothing to do with the chi-rho symbol. You could just as easily claim it came from the IX monogram and still you would be wrong.

duh?

I love this nit-picking of yours ~ it's become quite funny. It is generally accepted by the public or it would fall out of use, would it not?

D'uh.
What's funny is your exposition of christian symbols when your use of X has nothing to do with them.

duh?

If they have been offended 'by my use' then they haven't read my posts. ....
You're the one who started the chi-rho nonsense, were you not?

I don't use it at all ...
By your admission, you footnote your paper with it.

....round and round and round....

If you're going to lie about me, you really need to try a little harder.
And what exactly did I lie about, hmmm?
 
Dec 2014
13,183
10,648
NWOHQ
It is amusing to see you fart dust trying to deny what your own words clearly mean.

"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."

Is there a context where being called ignorant is not an insult?

duh?
It is amusing to see you get all upset over the inconsequential. Ignorant is a state of not knowing. It too, is neutral and the etymology is based on the Latin ignoro which simply means 'I don't know'.

In your library.

The proof of usage being samuel rogers' diary. Doesn't make it common, now, does it? Do keep up.
And around we go again. You missed the part where it stated 'in use since'.

XP is an abbreviation. X, according to you, is an abbreviation of the abbreviation XP. 'Xian' is a word, using the abbreviation X to replace 'christ'.

You re-read the exchange.
I don't have to as I'm not the one having so much trouble with this.

"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".

Your dishonesty is astounding!
The 'Chi-Rho' is the subject in this sentence, not 'Xian' or 'Xtian'. Your poor comprehension is astounding!

Anything published and posted in the internet?
Of mine? No.

Your intention to offend is undeniable given your own words.
Utter nonsense. Your comprhension is appalling.

There you go. You are making the argument that the early christians used the symbol to refer to themselves -- despite your dishonest denials to the contrary.

duh?
The 'Chi-Rho' is the subject of the sentence, not 'Xian' or 'Xtian'. How can you be this dense? The early Christians used the 'Chi-Rho' ~ do you get this now?

I was born 10 years after vatican 2. The documents accruing from this ecumencial council is a matter of record so I find your question irrelevant.
It was merely an aside as we were learning Latin until Vatican II. I thought that might be interesting.

Calling someone ignorant for seeing it other than neutral is an insult.
Only if you are ignorant of the etymology.

D'uh?

But you just admitted in this forum that you use it to footnote your papers.

duh?
But I haven't scanned an published my papers on this forum, therefore I have not employed the term on this forum. Do you read or comprehension, or simply to be an ass?

D'uh?

Precisely!

You wished to goad by calling christians ignorant for something as common as the chi-rho symbol.
Goal post shift noted. 'Ignorant' simply means 'a state of not knowing'.

How about beginning with what you said?
How about your fabrications and straw man arguments?

I didn't miss anything. Samuel rogers' diary is the purported basis for the word's usage in 1634.

duh?
Yes, but as I've stated repeatedly and which you continually choose to ignore, the link started 'in use since that time' [para.].

Then you haven't understood the sources you are offering here.
Oh dear. There's that comprehension problem of yours again.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/pejorati/#H2

e. Appropriation
Some pejoratives are used systematically to accomplish aims other than those for which they were designed. Appropriation refers to the various systematic ways in which agents repurpose pejorative language. For certain slurs, the target group takes over the term to transform its meaning to lessen or to eliminate its derogatory force. This is one variety of appropriation known as linguistic reclamation(Brontsema 2004). The term ‘queer’ is a paradigm case. Although ‘queer’ once derogated those who engaged in sexually abnormal behavior, the term ‘queer’ now contains little to no derogatory force as a result of homosexual women and men appropriating the term. Now, non-prejudiced speakers can use the term ‘queer’ in a various contexts. For instance, phrases such as ‘queer studies program’ and ‘queer theory’ do not derogate homosexuals. In contrast, the slur ‘nigger’ -often marked by an alternative spelling ‘nigga’- has been appropriated more exclusively by the target group, and is often used as a means of expressing camaraderie between group members (Saka 2007, p145). Barring a few rare exceptions, targeted speakers can use the term to refer to one another in a non-denigrating way. Appropriated uses of ‘nigger’ are common in comedic performances and satire. The use of ‘nigger’ in a comedy bit designed to mock and criticize racism need not commit the speaker to racist attitudes (Richard 2008, p.12).

Clear?
Irrelevant, as it is not a pejorative it is simply an abbreviation and I do not understand your problem with it. I believe I've already posted material in support of the neutral claim and it is the choice of the reader to take offence and not an implication of the term. How many times will we go over the same thing?

Your post continues: "...Although there is nothing offensive in the derivation of the term itself, its informal nature and use among skeptics and atheists sometimes makes the form seem dismissive or offensive to Christians.
'Sometimes' and 'Seem' being the key words here.

"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."
And again, the 'Chi-Rho' is the subject of that passage, not 'Xian' or 'Xtian'. How hard is this? It was later abbreviated by scholars to simply 'X'. They could have used the abbreviation PXian, but they didn't.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2014
13,183
10,648
NWOHQ
Because you asked.

duh?
That doesn't answer my question.

D'uh?

I'm correcting your etymology. X has nothing to do with the chi-rho symbol. You could just as easily claim it came from the IX monogram and still you would be wrong.

duh?
Of course its origins lie in the 'Chi-Rho'. How ridiculous to claim otherwise.

What's funny is your exposition of christian symbols when your use of X has nothing to do with them.

duh?
Now you're just making up stories.

D'uh?

You're the one who started the chi-rho nonsense, were you not?
Yes, but I don't employ the term 'Xian', so no-one has taken offence Mr. Straw Man.


By your admission, you footnote your paper with it.

....round and round and round....
But I don't employ the term on this site in conversation. Are you really going to flog this straw man again?

Indeed, round and round and round with your stupid and shifting accusations and claims.

Some honesty in debate on your part would be a welcome change. When you briefly flicked through 'Philosophy For Dummies', did you miss the section on Logic?

And what exactly did I lie about, hmmm?
My usage of the term in question and people complaining about it. I don't use it on this site in exchanges, so you invented the objections in the plural. I would have thought that would be easy enough to follow.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2014
13,183
10,648
NWOHQ
Lie.

You admitted using the word as footnote for your paper 'on this site'.

But I haven't published papers on this site Mr. Straw Man, so I haven't employed the term in exchanges, as you so dishonestly suggested, so no-one has taken offence, nor has anyone voiced any objections to me personally (apart from you and you appear to be quite irrational). Your goal post shifting is rather obvious.
 
Dec 2014
13,183
10,648
NWOHQ
I think it’s hilarious that one single letter gets people so upset and triggered...


duh?

Yes, the silly contortions are quite entertaining, but I've noticed complaining about it makes for a useful diversion from the topic at times.
 
Last edited: