'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[mafya]

I don't claim to be representative of anyone, but the ragged army of atheists here immediately pounce on any post about faith or the good the church does, using the most offensive terms imaginable.

 

You are quite right, there are a couple of atheists on here who spring to mind and if you debate with one the other one always pops up to give him support.

They are lucky they do it on the internet because if they came out with the insulting remarks they use on here to a persons face than i can safely say they would end up getting a good hiding.

[discodown]

You are quite right, there are a couple of atheists on here who spring to mind and if you debate with one the other one always pops up to give him support.

They are lucky they do it on the internet because if they came out with the insulting remarks they use on here to a persons face than i can safely say they would end up getting a good hiding.

So the Christian would beat them? Shouldn't he just forgive them, otherwise he's not much of a Christian is he?

[plekhanov]

You are quite right, there are a couple of atheists on here who spring to mind and if you debate with one the other one always pops up to give him support.

They are lucky they do it on the internet because if they came out with the insulting remarks they use on here to a persons face than i can safely say they would end up getting a good hiding.

Yet another barely veiled threat of violence from you how surprising

 

Aren't you the least bit concerned about how threatening violence against people simply because they say things you don't like about your religion & prophet plays into the hands of BNP types who just love to try and portray muslims as being violently intolerant?

[harvey19]

You are quite right, there are a couple of atheists on here who spring to mind and if you debate with one the other one always pops up to give him support.

 

I have wondered if it is the same person using different user names.

[plekhanov]

Interesting. - The pair of you might find yourselves in a deal of trouble if your argument was applied to other groups.

 

Are you, Plekhanov, suggesting that it is 'up to the prosecution' to prove, in each case, that the use of a term held by some to be offensive is, indeed offensive?

Of course I am, otherwise our entire lexicon would be help hostage by every individual with a grievance to the detriment of all. No word is inherently offensive, any 'offensive' quality a word has is a combination of its etymology & usage.

 

X is commonly used to abbreviate 'Christ' by Xians (if you don't believe me just wait a month & count all the signs, cards... saying "Xmas") and has been for centuries. Just because an ignorant minority of Xians like to try and play the victim that doesn't mean that they should be able dictate to everyone else what language to use.

 

If somebody was to call a homosexual a 'homo' or a 'faggot' would a person who complained about the use of the term be required to prove that "the term remains offensive" ?

Prove to whom and to what standard of evidence?

 

There are some terms which are very widely considered to be

 

SCSUX, are you suggesting that there should be some sort of enquiry (or possibly legal proceedings) to determine the mens rea (or lack thereof) each time a person uses a derogatory term? Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad idea - after all, the existence of both mens rea and the actus reus are ordinarily required before finding an individual guilty. Plekhanov's argument would require the prosecution to prove that the term used was indeed held - at law - to be a derogatory term and your argument would require the prosecution to prove that the accused intended to use the term in a derogatory manner.

 

Such a procedure might demonstrate that any action taken against the person using the term was in accordance with the traditional legal system, but it would, effectively, emasculate the legislation designed to prevent societal friction arising from offensive speech.

 

That's the commonsense answer. It applies in other cases, so why shouldn't it apply here? - If any (it doesn't require unaninity) members of any identifiable group find a particular term offensive, why should others use it? - Unless, of course, they wish to be offensive.

I've just realised I find the terms 'white', 'male', 'atheist', 'English', 'British', 'European', 'human', 'ape' and 'mammal' offensive and as such demand that henceforth everyone should stop using those words. Isn't "commonsense" wonderful.

[sccsux]

SCSUX, are you suggesting that there should be some sort of enquiry...

 

Behave.

 

I was meaning, rather than assume something is inferred in a statement, ask the OP; then accept their interpretation, rather than lay into people with wild accusations.

[plekhanov]

I have wondered if it is the same person using different user names.

If that's the case all you need do is present mods with good evidence to back up your pathetic insinuations and any users found to be using sockpuppets will no doubt be banned. So jump to it do a little research and with a little luck maybe you'll no longer have your tender sensibilities offended by posters flagrantly using reason and evidence.

 

Or alternately you could just keep on skulking around sniping at posters who you disagree with but haven't the capacity to debate.

[gabby]

I thought it meant 'Crossian', as in someone from Parson Cross:hihi:

[mj.scuba]

I thought it meant 'Crossian', as in someone from Parson Cross:hihi:

 

I thought they were "Crossers"

[plekhanov]

Among the many threads and discussions about theism versus atheism which are a regular feature of SF life the word 'Xian' appears with some regularity.

 

An open question to those who use it - your use of the word is hard to see in terms other than it being a belligerent act, employed with intent to belittle or reduce.

Presumably you would claim to have no personal animosity toward individual Christians? And yet you choose to describe them collectively in terms that are at best childish, at worst offensive. I find it odd, but perhaps more importantly I think it undermines any reasoned views that you have.

Shortly signs will be appear all over the country wishing people "Merry Xmas" many of them put up by Xians, are you suggesting they do this due to some kind of self loathing?

 

One might think that if your counterarguments to those who believe in a deity are sound that it would do your view no harm to refer to those you adress by their own preferred terms (christian).

Imagine if you will an article by an intelligent, thoughtful commentator about atheists, in which the author constantly refers to them as, for example 'turdyboys' or 'Godophobes' - would you be less or more likely to consider the authors views seriously than if he'd used the correct terminology?

Aside from the rather significant fact that Xian is "correct terminology" your counterexample makes no sense as X is a well established abbreviation of "Christ" whilst 'turdyboys' and 'Godophobes' are clearly not contractions of 'atheist'.

 

So, why the continued use of the term?

Conducive to debate? I think not.

Accurate? Certainly not.

Reflects a mature personality? Debatable.

Intended to provoke? Hard to see otherwise.

 

Your comments and thoughts are welcome.

Would someone with a "mature personality" start a thread berating others for abbreviating "Christ" to "X" and declare that abbreviation not to be accurate without first taking a moment to do a bit of basic research to learn a little about the subject they are about make such declarations upon?