Xianity vs Christianity

[fewwillfindit]

I am not sure if this is the proper subforum in which to be raising this issue, and I hope that I am not overstepping my bounds in doing so. I've noticed the term "Xian" being applied to Christians in various threads. It is not my intention to call out any specific individual or individuals.

I consider Xian to be a pejorative term, and I think that it is disrespectful. We do have a name by which we are called, and that is, "Christian." I am stating the obvious here, but the term means, "of Christ." We are not "of X," and we do not worship a Savior called X. We worship Christ.

To call it Xianity is to imply that the name of the One after Whom it is named isn't even worthy of mention. This also implies that He is just one of a plethora of various flavors of gods from which to choose, and ours just happens to be god-X. I understand that many promote the latter viewpoint, but Christians to not.

I would request that it become a forum-wide rule, that satirization of the names of various religions or non-religions that are represented on this forum should not be allowed, in light of the primary thrust of this forum, which is "civil and engaging debate."

After all, it would be disrespectful for theists to go around applying satirical monikers to non-theists. Instead, we call them non-theists, because that is what they choose to be called. I would ask for the same level of respect.

[Ooberman]

Ann: how about not judging the motives of others?

Don’t you think, perhaps, you are being a bit paranoid? I believe you’ve made your reason for using “x-ian� quite clear. However, you continue to be very defensive. Why? Please explain how my prior post was “judging the motives of others,� as you say.

Ann

Many people who refer to Christians as “x-ians� will openly admit that they do it out of disrespect for [Christ] Christianity. Therefore, to falsely claim that most non-Christian-individuals who refer to Christians as “x-ians� are not being disrespectful in there intentions is simply incorrect.

Can you back this up, or is this yet another Xian assertion without basis in fact, or without any intention of being supported?

I am defensive because people keep claiming I am using Xian to be disrespectful after many posts to the contrary, and that I can't stand sanctimonious and ignorant people - i.e., Xians who don't know about the history of their religion and look for reasons to feel persecuted by the spelling of something they don't even own.

[Darias]

Many people who refer to Christians as “x-ians� will openly admit that they do it out of disrespect for [Christ] Christianity. Therefore, to falsely claim that most non-Christian-individuals who refer to Christians as “x-ians� are not being disrespectful in there intentions is simply incorrect.

Can you back this up, or is this yet another Xian assertion without basis in fact, or without any intention of being supported?

I am defensive because people keep claiming I am using Xian to be disrespectful after many posts to the contrary, and that I can't stand sanctimonious and ignorant people - i.e., Xians who don't know about the history of their religion and look for reasons to feel persecuted by the spelling of something they don't even own.

The argument Ann is presenting here is hers, based off her own experiences. It is not a "Xian assertion" as you call it.

It would be nice if you didn't refer to Christians as this collective entity known as "Xian" that asserts things "without basis in fact, or without any intention of being supported" and which doesn't "know about the history of [it's] religion and look[s] for reasons to feel persecuted."

Maybe then, people wouldn't make much fuss about your preference of spelling.

[fewwillfindit]

Christmas was an invention of Catholics, not the Bible, and was a successful attempt to enmesh Christianity with existing pagan tradition and ritual.

To state that Christmas is nothing more than a Catholic “invention� is simplistic and grossly ignorant. What is Christmas, really? It is man’s way of celebrating and, thereby, giving thanks to God for giving us sinners His Son. He came to earth as an infant (born of Mary, ever Virgin) for one purpose –to redeem sinners. As Christians we are joyful of God’s gift to mankind. We show that joy by setting aside one special day to remember and celebrate that birth of our Savior. This is called Christmas. Just as a person who loves his parents or his children celebrates their birthdays, in whatever way they mark that day, Christians celebrate the birth of their Savior whom they love on a day set aside to do just that. It is not that they do not love Him every day, or are not joyful of God’s gift of His son every day, but they mark their love on a particular day called Christmas.

Therefore, your assertion is nothing more than a feeble attempt to distort the truth of Christ’s Holy Church by espousing Christmas to be an “invention� of Catholics.

Ann

From: Wiki: Christmas

Around AD 200, Clement of Alexandria wrote that a group in Egypt celebrated the nativity on 25 Pashons.[8] This corresponds to May 20.[64] Tertullian (d. 220) does not mention Christmas as a major feast day in the Church of Roman Africa.[8] However, in Chronographai, a reference work published in 221, Sextus Julius Africanus suggested that Jesus was conceived on the spring equinox, popularizing the idea that Christ was born on December 25.[65][66] The equinox was March 25 on the Roman calendar, so this implied a birth in December.[67] De Pascha Computus, a calendar of feasts produced in 243, gives March 28 as the date of the nativity.[68] In 245, the theologian Origen of Alexandria stated that, "only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod)" celebrated their birthdays.[69] In 303, Christian writer Arnobius ridiculed the idea of celebrating the birthdays of gods, which suggests that Christmas was not yet a feast at this time.[8]The earliest known reference to the date of the nativity as December 25 is found in the Chronography of 354, an illuminated manuscript compiled in Rome.[70] In the East, early Christians celebrated the birth of Christ as part of Epiphany (January 6), although this festival emphasized celebration of the baptism of Jesus.[71]Christmas was promoted in the Christian East as part of the revival of Catholicism following the death of the pro-Arian Emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. The feast was introduced to Constantinople in 379, and to Antioch in about 380. The feast disappeared after Gregory of Nazianzus resigned as bishop in 381, although it was reintroduced by John Chrysostom in about 400.[8]

========================================================
Following the Protestant Reformation, groups such as the Puritans strongly condemned the celebration of Christmas, considering it a Catholic invention and the "trappings of popery" or the "rags of the Beast."[75] The Catholic Church responded by promoting the festival in a more religiously oriented form. King Charles I of England directed his noblemen and gentry to return to their landed estates in midwinter to keep up their old style Christmas generosity.[74] Following the Parliamentarian victory over Charles I during the English Civil War, England's Puritan rulers banned Christmas in 1647.[75] Protests followed as pro-Christmas rioting broke out in several cities and for weeks Canterbury was controlled by the rioters, who decorated doorways with holly and shouted royalist slogans.[75] The book, The Vindication of Christmas (London, 1652), argued against the Puritans, and makes note of Old English Christmas traditions, dinner, roast apples on the fire, card playing, dances with "plow-boys" and "maidservants", and carol singing.[76] The Restoration of King Charles II in 1660 ended the ban, but many clergymen still disapproved of Christmas celebration. In Scotland, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland also discouraged observance of Christmas. James VI commanded its celebration in 1618, however attendance at church was scant.[77]In Colonial America, the Puritans of New England shared radical Protestant disapproval of Christmas. Celebration was outlawed in Boston from 1659 to 1681. The ban by the Pilgrims was revoked in 1681 by English governor Sir Edmund Andros, however it was not until the mid-19th century that celebrating Christmas became fashionable in the Boston region.[78]

========================================================
Throughout the holiday's history, Christmas has been the subject of both controversy and criticism from a wide variety of different sources. The first documented Christmas controversy was Christian-led, and began during the English Interregnum, when England was ruled by a Puritan Parliament.[98] Puritans (including those who fled to America) sought to remove the remaining pagan elements of Christmas. During this period, the English Parliament banned the celebration of Christmas entirely, considering it "a popish festival with no biblical justification", and a time of wasteful and immoral behavior.[99]

From: Here

A. Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people� to represent the “Lord of Misrule.� Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.

B. The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time. In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season).

C. In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.[2]

D. The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th, to be Jesus’ birthday.

E. Christians had little success, however, refining the practices of Saturnalia. As Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst, writes, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.� The earliest Christmas holidays were celebrated by drinking, sexual indulgence, singing naked in the streets (a precursor of modern caroling), etc.

F. The Reverend Increase Mather of Boston observed in 1687 that “the early Christians who first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.�[3] Because of its known pagan origin, Christmas was banned by the Puritans and its observance was illegal in Massachusetts between 1659 and 1681.[4] However, Christmas was and still is celebrated by most Christians.

G. Some of the most depraved customs of the Saturnalia carnival were intentionally revived by the Catholic Church in 1466 when Pope Paul II, for the amusement of his Roman citizens, forced Jews to race naked through the streets of the city. An eyewitness account reports, “Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them and at the same time more amusing for spectators. They ran… amid Rome’s taunting shrieks and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily.�[5]

H. As part of the Saturnalia carnival throughout the 18th and 19th centuries CE, rabbis of the ghetto in Rome were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the city streets to the jeers of the crowd, pelted by a variety of missiles. When the Jewish community of Rome sent a petition in1836 to Pope Gregory XVI begging him to stop the annual Saturnalia abuse of the Jewish community, he responded, “It is not opportune to make any innovation.�[6] On December 25, 1881, Christian leaders whipped the Polish masses into Antisemitic frenzies that led to riots across the country. In Warsaw 12 Jews were brutally murdered, huge numbers maimed, and many Jewish women were raped. Two million rubles worth of property was destroyed.

From: Christian History Timeline

Today is Christmas day (Christ's mass). But for the first 300 years of Christianity, it wasn't so. When was Christmas first celebrated? In an old list of Roman bishops, compiled in A. D. 354 these words appear for A.D. 336: "25 Dec.: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae." December 25th, Christ born in Bethlehem, Judea. This day, December 25, 336, is the first recorded celebration of Christmas.

For the first three hundred years of the church's existence, birthdays were not given much emphasis--not even the birth of Christ. The day on which a saint died was considered more significant than his or her birth, as it ushered him or her into the kingdom of heaven. Christ's baptism received more attention than his birthday in the January 6th feast of Epiphany.

No one knows for sure on what day Christ was born. Dionysus Exiguus, a sixth century monk, who was the first to date all of history from December 25th, the year of our Lord 1. Other traditions gave dates as early as mid-November or as late as March. How did Christmas come to be celebrated on December 25th? Cultures around the Mediterranean and across Europe observed feasts on or around December 25th, marking the winter solstice. The Jews had a festival of lights. Germans had a yule festival. Celtic legends connected the solstice with Balder, the Scandinavian sun god who was struck down by a mistletoe arrow. At the pagan festival of Saturnalia, Romans feasted and gave gifts to the poor. Drinking was closely connected with these pagan feasts. At some point, a Christian bishop may have adopted the day to keep his people from indulging in the old pagan festival.

Historian William J. Tighe offers a different view, however. When a consensus arose in the church to celebrate Christ's conception on March 25th, it was reasonable to celebrate his birth nine months later.

Many of the pagan customs became associated with Christmas. Christian stories replaced the heathen tales, but the practices hung on. Candles continued to be lit. Kissing under the mistletoe remained common in Scandinavian countries. But over the years, gift exchanges became connected with the name of St. Nicholas, a real but legendary figure of 4th century Lycia (a province of Asia). A charitable man, he threw gifts into homes.

Around the thirteenth century, Christians added one of the most pleasant touches of all to Christmas celebration when they began to sing Christmas carols.

No one is sure just when the Christmas tree came into the picture. It originated in Germany. The 8th century English missionary, St. Boniface, Apostle to Germany, is supposed to have held up the evergreen as a symbol of the everlasting Christ. By the end of the sixteenth century, Christmas trees were common in Germany. Some say Luther cut the first, took it home, and decked it with candles to represent the stars. When the German court came to England, the Christmas tree came with them.

Puritans forbade Christmas, considering it too pagan. Governor Bradford actually threatened New Englanders with work, jail or fines if they were caught observing Christmas

As you can see, I am not alone in stating that Christmas is a Catholic invention and that it has pagan origins rather than Biblical origins. Notice in the statement that you quoted from me that I didn't say anything about the birth of Christ or birthdays in general. I specifically used the word "Chistmas." Yet you immediately launched into an attack calling my statement, "simplistic and grossly ignorant," then proceeded to give us a nice little lesson on birthdays.

Now that you have enlightened us as to why contemporary humanity likes to celebrate birthdays (which has nothing to do with my statement), would you care to disprove my claim? Can you share a New Testament passage which shows that the New Testament church celebrated Christ's birth? Can you show an instance of the word "Christmas" appearing in any significant way in history before the Catholic church created the holiday? Are you aware of the etymology of the word "Christmas?"

If you can make a compelling case as to why I am wrong, I will consider retracting my statement. However, if you cannot, then I think that a retraction of the following statements that you made would be in order:

To state that Christmas is nothing more than a Catholic “invention� is simplistic and grossly ignorant.
=======================================
Therefore, your assertion is nothing more than a feeble attempt to distort the truth of Christ’s Holy Church by espousing Christmas to be an “invention� of Catholics.

I'm not looking for evidence that some people here and there celebrated Christ's birthday. I'm specifically talking about the word "Christmas" and the holiday that goes by that name.

[Ann]

fewwillfindit,

Unfortunately, the bare bones private judgment and reliance on Bible translations and lexicons on the part of the Protestant, who would limit even the vocabulary of the discussion to the English words of some translation of the Bible, will never allow you to see the sheer absurdity of such a position.

Christmas is a word not found in the Bible so, according to your “reasoning,� it must be rejected as a Catholic invention. Are you going to reject the Most Holy Trinity as a Catholic invention as well because the word Trinity is not mentioned even once in the Bible?


Ann

[Ooberman]

Many people who refer to Christians as “x-ians� will openly admit that they do it out of disrespect for [Christ] Christianity. Therefore, to falsely claim that most non-Christian-individuals who refer to Christians as “x-ians� are not being disrespectful in there intentions is simply incorrect.

Can you back this up, or is this yet another Xian assertion without basis in fact, or without any intention of being supported?

I am defensive because people keep claiming I am using Xian to be disrespectful after many posts to the contrary, and that I can't stand sanctimonious and ignorant people - i.e., Xians who don't know about the history of their religion and look for reasons to feel persecuted by the spelling of something they don't even own.

The argument Ann is presenting here is hers, based off her own experiences. It is not a "Xian assertion" as you call it.

It would be nice if you didn't refer to Christians as this collective entity known as "Xian" that asserts things "without basis in fact, or without any intention of being supported" and which doesn't "know about the history of [it's] religion and look[s] for reasons to feel persecuted."

Maybe then, people wouldn't make much fuss about your preference of spelling.

1. Her invection against no-xians was a bigotted fallacy. Read it again. She says "Many" (I wonder, 1? 2?) people who use X-ian do it to be rude. Therefore, she concludes, that it is wrong to say that people who use it aren't being rude. It's a tautology - an assertion.

Here is the form:
1. Most people who have red hair are criminals
2. Therefore, to say most people who have red hair aren't criminals is incorrect.

It's bigotry, plain and simple. It's a self-referential assertion with no support. After all, no doubt she includes me in her majority of people who use it pejoritively, but I don't. So, we have to wonder how many other times she has seen it used she got it wrong.

2. Xian = Christian. Get over it. Any inference is your own. You are like a Liberal who thinks everytime a non-Liberal uses the term "Liberal" it's meant to be pejorative. That is wrong and unproductive and I think in the interest of civil debate you shouldn't presume such things.

I think Xians should be more civil and accept people have different ways of expressing themselves that has nothing to do with their sensitivities.

As i said, I don't see Xians writing "G-d", where is there outrage for sensitivity?!

[fewwillfindit]

Unfortunately, the bare bones private judgment and reliance on Bible translations and lexicons on the part of the Protestant, who would limit even the vocabulary of the discussion to the English words of some translation of the Bible, will never allow you to see the sheer absurdity of such a position.

Please show me where I did this? Did you even read my post?

Christmas is a word not found in the Bible so, according to your “reasoning,� it must be rejected as a Catholic invention. Are you going to reject the Most Holy Trinity as a Catholic invention as well because the word Trinity is not mentioned even once in the Bible?

Perhaps it would behoove you to read my post more circumspectly. I didn't ask you to show me where Christmas was found in the Bible. I know better than that. I asked you to show me where in the New Testament it shows the New Testament church observing Christ's birth. I also asked you other questions. I also posted evidence to support my claim.

Nice dodge. Now would you care to either address my post or retract the following accusation?

To state that Christmas is nothing more than a Catholic “invention� is simplistic and grossly ignorant.
=======================================
Therefore, your assertion is nothing more than a feeble attempt to distort the truth of Christ’s Holy Church by espousing Christmas to be an “invention� of Catholics.

Those are harsh words to be tossed about and require more than opinion to back them up.


It should be noted that this is precisely why I abandoned our other debate, which was quite lengthy. You used the same diversionary techniques there that you are using here, and refused to actually debate the points at hand. I saw no point in continuing the other debate for this reason. Perhaps you will choose to adjust your tactics and address my post here.

It should also be noted that the only reason that I brought Christmas into this discussion, was that on page one, I responded to cnorman18 and said that the reason that the shortening of Christmas to Xmas doesn't bother me is because Christmas is a Catholic invention. You are the one who chose to turn this into an issue, yet after I showed that my statement was not founded in ingorance and that there have been many throughout history who hold this position, you dismiss it by stating your opinion. Again.

[Cathar1950]

Unfortunately, the bare bones private judgment and reliance on Bible translations and lexicons on the part of the Protestant, who would limit even the vocabulary of the discussion to the English words of some translation of the Bible, will never allow you to see the sheer absurdity of such a position.

Please show me where I did this? Did you even read my post?

Christmas is a word not found in the Bible so, according to your “reasoning,� it must be rejected as a Catholic invention. Are you going to reject the Most Holy Trinity as a Catholic invention as well because the word Trinity is not mentioned even once in the Bible?

Perhaps it would behoove you to read my post more circumspectly. I didn't ask you to show me where Christmas was found in the Bible. I know better than that. I asked you to show me where the New Testament church observed Christ's birth. I also asked you other questions. I also posted evidence to support my claim.

Nice dodge. Now would you care to either address my post or retract the following accusation?

To state that Christmas is nothing more than a Catholic “invention� is simplistic and grossly ignorant.
=======================================
Therefore, your assertion is nothing more than a feeble attempt to distort the truth of Christ’s Holy Church by espousing Christmas to be an “invention� of Catholics.

Those are harsh words to be tossed about and require more than opinion to back them up.


It should be noted that this is precisely why I abandoned our other debate, which was quite lengthy. You used the same diversionary techniques there that you are using here, and refused to actually debate the points at hand. I saw no point in continuing the other debate for this reason. I am hoping that you will choose to adjust your tactics and address my post here.

It should also be noted that the only reason that I brought Christmas into this discussion, was that on page one, I responded to cnorman18 and said that the reason that the shortening of Christmas to Xmas doesn't bother me is because Christmas is a Catholic invention. You are the one who chose to turn this into an issue, yet after I showed that my statement was not founded in ingorance and that there have been many throughout history who hold this position, you dismiss it by stating your opinion. Again.

Except in our popular culture the places I saw X used for Christ was among Christians and usually fairly well educated Christians as X stood for the Greek letter that begins his name in Greek. It should be Y-mas going back to Aramaic or Hebrew.
I have no problem with it and I doubt many Christian scholars do either.
Of course Christmas was a pagan celebration but so what? If we look at the history of other religions we can see the same kinds of things going on. Passover is such a case as are a number of other Jewish times.
Despite the roots of such celebrations there are going to be what they are going to be to the people that observe them.
So through another log upon the Yul log to keep it burning and get on with it.
Of course the first Christians didn't celibate x-mas; they would have celebrated Jewish holy days, so the right thing to do is to take Christ out of Christmas if you want to get all technical and be like the ancient where older is better.

[fewwillfindit]

Of course Christmas was a pagan celebration but so what?

I understand what you are saying, but that's not the point. The point is that Ann is denying this, and also denying that Christmas was a Catholic invention. I merely want her to do the honorable thing and admit that she is wrong.

The irony here, and I haven't mentioned it yet, is that I celebrate Christmas, primarily for the sake of my children and grandchildren. I'm not a mean old ogre.

[Ann]

She says "Many" (I wonder, 1? 2?) people who use X-ian do it to be rude…It's bigotry, plain and simple.

Concerning the cry of “bigotry,� I invite you to look up the meaning of bigotry. For my part, I simply responded to the topic by pointing out that there are people (many people) who use “x-ian� out of disrespect for Christianity. Why do you wonder as to the meaning of the word many? Many is not a couple (which is two), rather it is defined as a considerable number. I stated (based on their own answers) that a considerable number of non-Christians will openly admit that they refer to Christians as “x-ians� out of disrespect for Christianity.

Your overly defensive responses to this topic demonstrate that it is not enough for you to simply state your own reason for referring to Christians as “x-ians.� You seem compelled to protest the reasons of other non-Christians as to why they use it. What are you hoping to achieve by protesting their preferred reason for saying “x-ians�?

no doubt she includes me in her majority of people who use it pejoratively

You write as though you are guilty of something, but as I said, I believe you already made your reason for using it quite clear.

It should be noted that this is precisely why I abandoned our other debate, which was quite lengthy.

You abandoned our other debate, because you could neither prove you own position, nor disprove mine. That’s another matter entirely, however, and has no place in this particular discussion.

It should also be noted that the only reason that I brought Christmas into this discussion, was that on page one, I responded to cnorman18 and said that the reason that the shortening of Christmas to Xmas doesn't bother me is because Christmas is a Catholic invention.

Yes, you took the liberty of attacking Catholicism based on your own misguided opinions. You see nothing wrong with the removal of Christ from the word Christmas (a Christian celebration which honors His birth), but clearly felt insulted over the removal of Christ from the word Christian. Such is your convoluted way of thinking!

I ask you, is honoring the birth of Jesus Christ a pagan celebration? Yes or no?

Are Catholics the only people to have ever celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ? Yes or no?

Catholics did not “invent� the holy celebration of Christ’s birth (Christmas). For we know that His birth was celebrated from the very beginning. “And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they adored him; and opening their treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh.� (Matthew 2:11)

Ann

[fewwillfindit]

You see nothing wrong with the removal of Christ from the word Christmas (a Christian celebration which honors His birth), but clearly felt insulted over the removal of Christ from the word Christian. Such is your convoluted way of thinking!

Why whould I be concerned with the removal of Christ from a Catholic institution? I would be no more concerned over that than I would with the removal of fasting from the Muslim Ramadan.

I ask you, is honoring the birth of Jesus Christ a pagan celebration? Yes or no?

You apparently did not read the three sources that I quoted. The question in this discussion has nothing to do with whether or not honoring Christ's birthday is pagan. The question is, "Is Christmas a Catholic invention with pagan origins?" That answer would be "yes."

Are Catholics the only people to have ever celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ? Yes or no?

Seriously? Have you read this entire thread? Did you not read that I celebrate Christmas for the sake of my children and grandchildren?

Catholics did not “invent� the holy celebration of Christ’s birth (Christmas). For we know that His birth was celebrated from the very beginning. “And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they adored him; and opening their treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh.� (Matthew 2:11)

You are sidestepping again Ann. I asked where in the New Testament do we find the New Testament church celebrating the birth of Christ. The magi were not Christians.


Once again you do the dance of diversion.