What's BCE mean?

[OneFollowingHim]

I'm not really sure what this means or where this thread should go, but I konw a lot of people hang out around here and probalby have the answer.

So I go to this website (http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/) and I read this:

"The earliest, and best known, source for the story of the Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas, a lengthy document that recalls how Ptolemy (Philadelphus II [285–247 BCE])"

Source (http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/).

I know the 285-247 BCE probably means when Philadelphus II lived here on earth. But I have no idea when that is. I know BC means "before Christ". But what the heck is BCE? Before Christ Emerged? I don't know. Can anyone help? Thanks.

[sylas]

I
I know the 285-247 BCE probably means when Philadelphus II lived here on earth. But I have no idea when that is. I know BC means "before Christ". But what the heck is BCE? Before Christ Emerged? I don't know. Can anyone help? Thanks.

Before Common Era. Pragmatically it means the same as BC

[A-Man]

Before Common Era. Pragmatically it means the same as BC

Some also use "Before Christian Era". Either way, it's basically a politically correct term.

[Johnny MacManky]

It's amazing how we can be stumped sometimes by such simple issues. Quite a few years ago, when I began doing serious study, I took to checking out the sources cited in various books. I determined to check out as many pertinent primary sources as I could. I even managed to find quite a few old books that were frequently cited, but there was one book that seemed to be cited from all the time, in fact, just about everything seemed to be contained in this wonderful book.... I figured it must be some super sized compilation of everything that had ever been written...


...it's name?



































Ibid!!!

[furay]

It's amazing how we can be stumped sometimes by such simple issues. Quite a few years ago, when I began doing serious study, I took to checking out the sources cited in various books. I determined to check out as many pertinent primary sources as I could. I even managed to find quite a few old books that were frequently cited, but there was one book that seemed to be cited from all the time, in fact, just about everything seemed to be contained in this wonderful book.... I figured it must be some super sized compilation of everything that had ever been written...


...it's name?



































Ibid!!!
:lol:

[OneFollowingHim]

Some also use "Before Christian Era". Either way, it's basically a politically correct term.

Thanks.

"Before common era"?!!! Oi vey! I should have known it was motivated by political correctness. What the heck is "common era" anyways? What happens in 1,000 years. Seems like dating with the "before common era" method would change with time. No? Unless, of course, you use the birth of Christ as the beginning of the "common era".

"Before Christian era" doesn't seem very politically correct.

[Alien]

Ibid!!!

Yup. It's like that very prolific poet, "Anon". :smile:

[Alien]

Thanks.

"Before common era"?!!! Oi vey! I should have known it was motivated by political correctness. What the heck is "common era" anyways? What happens in 1,000 years. Seems like dating with the "before common era" method would change with time. No? Unless, of course, you use the birth of Christ as the beginning of the "common era".

The year zero is of course the start (or end) of this dating system and was originally set at what was considered to be the birth of Christ. (It got messed up somewhere and is now four years off, I believe, but it's now so much part of everything that no one is going to change it.)

The renaming makes more sense if you think about it's opposite. "AD" is short for "Anno Domini" which translates as "in the year of our Lord". This is likely to be offensive to anyone who doesn't consider Christ to be their "Lord". Imagine yourself to be a Muslim for a moment. So "CE" ("common era", meaning the dating system most people follow) was introduced to get round this. It's politically correct, yes, but this one has a good reason imo. Of course, once you have "CE", "BCE" follows naturally.


"Before Christian era" doesn't seem very politically correct.

I agree. It is better than what "AD" stands for, but not much.

[A-Man]

The year zero is of course the start (or end) of this dating system and was originally set at what was considered to be the birth of Christ. (It got messed up somewhere and is now four years off, I believe, but it's now so much part of everything that no one is going to change it.)

The renaming makes more sense if you think about it's opposite. "AD" is short for "Anno Domini" which translates as "in the year of our Lord". This is likely to be offensive to anyone who doesn't consider Christ to be their "Lord". Imagine yourself to be a Muslim for a moment. So "CE" ("common era", meaning the dating system most people follow) was introduced to get round this. It's politically correct, yes, but this one has a good reason imo. Of course, once you have "CE", "BCE" follows naturally.

I agree. It is better than what "AD" stands for, but not much.

How politically correct do you think we should be, Alien? I'm suprised at your response. You don't like what "AD" stands for??

[Alien]

How politically correct do you think we should be, Alien? I'm suprised at your response. You don't like what "AD" stands for??

I like it fine, but then, I'm a Christian. Jesus is "My Lord".

On the other hand, I can see how people of other religions, or none, might be offended by it. Christians don't own the date, and "CE" is not offensive to me. Is it to you?

[Dwevlo]

Its a Christian dating system. It accidentally became the dominant dating system. Renaming it doesn't change its history, it still starts with Jesus. If we want to really be politically correct we could rescale a new dating system. Not sure where we would start it though. Formation of the earth is not exact enough probably, but that would be a more politically correct place to start. (Maybe thats too earthocentric though?)

Muslims have their own calender, and they use it in their countries. Frankly I wouldn't care if we used the Islamic Calender as a general calender. (Except its lunar and not solar... so that might be confusing)

I think our system of time is stupid though. I'm all for Decimal Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time).

[Johnny MacManky]

Anyone any ideas what the earliest evidence is for a seven day week?

[Dwevlo]

Looks to be pretty old. Found this:
Jeremy Campbell, in his comprehensive inquiry into the human nature of time, jauntily titled Winston Churchill's Afternoon Nap, gives Israel full credit for introducing the seven-day week. "In all the ancient world, so far as is known, there was no seven-day calendar cycle except for the Jewish week, which existed at the very beginning of the monarchical period in Israel [approximately 1000 B.C.] and perhaps even earlier than that. A seven-day week was unknown among the ancient Greeks, whose holidays were held at very irregular intervals, since they fell on the days of religious feasts in different cities up and down the country.

Besides the Israelite heptad, or seven day period, another tradition contributed to the forming of our modern seven-day week. Long before the Greeks, Babylonian astronomers began to identify and name the seven heavenly bodies (sun and moon included as "planets") which they observed moving about the sky. Lacking our modern telescopes, they did not spot Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. Neither did they name weekdays after those seven "planets." Assigning planets to the days of the week is attributed to the Egyptians. But once a planet became attached to a day, the seven day "planetary week" came into existence.
Thats what I found real quick like. The 7-day week is probably older than recorded history.

[Johnny MacManky]

Thanks Dwev. The reason I asked, I'm sure you guessed, was related to the OP, in a way. If some see fit to get rid of AD/BC then, assuming the 7 day week is also Bible based, perhaps they'll want to get rid of that as well.

I seem to remember reading of an experiment to introduce a ten day week. Guess it didn't work.

[bandecoot]

Thanks Dwev. The reason I asked, I'm sure you guessed, was related to the OP, in a way. If some see fit to get rid of AD/BC then, assuming the 7 day week is also Bible based, perhaps they'll want to get rid of that as well.

I seem to remember reading of an experiment to introduce a ten day week. Guess it didn't work.


Rome had an 8 day working week.

[Johnny MacManky]

Rome had an 8 day working week.

How far around the Roman Empire did that extend Bande, and have you any idea when (if) it was changed to a seven day cycle - or was the 8 day week like a modern day shift pattern which overlapped the actual 7 day week?

It was just a thought that crossed my mind in relation to the followers of Jesus meeting on the "first day of the week" and possible implications for Sabbath day exegesis.

[A-Man]

On the other hand, I can see how people of other religions, or none, might be offended by it. Christians don't own the date, and "CE" is not offensive to me. Is it to you?

So what, Alien? The point is how far are you willing to go to be "non-offensive"? I don't care if Muslims are offended by our system of dating. Have you been to middle east countries? Do you think they care if some outsider is "offended"? This whole political correctness and "lets not hurt someones feelings" must stop.

[Darth Executor]

Being in Canada, I'm surrounded by many immigrants, a good chunk of which are muslim. Never, EVER have I ran into anybody, muslim or otherwise, who is offended by the dating system. I only run into these mythical offended people on the Internet and they always seem to be non-theists (the really stupid, insane kind).

[EvoUK]

I'm not particulary offended by BC or AD, BCE and CE just makes more sense for a universal dating system. They still use the supposed birth of christ as the starting point as it's too deeply ingrained in western culture to change it. Any start date would be ultimately arbitrary anyways.

[Alien]

Thanks Dwev. The reason I asked, I'm sure you guessed, was related to the OP, in a way. If some see fit to get rid of AD/BC then, assuming the 7 day week is also Bible based, perhaps they'll want to get rid of that as well.

Nobody suggested getting rid of the system which calls this year "2006". "CE" is just another name for it.

[XaositectCrayon]

yet I dont know one lay person that knows what AD meens

most assume it meens after death

which makes a certain Marilyn Manson song whos name I forgot (there's a lyric in it that goes "The second(possibly minute) that it's born it begins to die") kinda amusing for me...

[Alien]

So what, Alien?

So what? You don't care if you offend people?


The point is how far are you willing to go to be "non-offensive"?

I depends. It has to be decided on a case by case basis. This one is doesn't seem unreasonable to me; obviously you disagree.


I don't care if Muslims are offended by our system of dating.

Oh sorry, you answered my question.


Have you been to middle east countries? Do you think they care if some outsider is "offended"? This whole political correctness and "lets not hurt someones feelings" must stop.

We don't have to (and shouldn't) base our standards of behavior on those of others.

I agree that this whole PC thing has gone too far in some areas. That doesn't mean we should just dump the whole thing. Why shouldn't we care about people's feelings? We can disagree about any given example of course, as we do here, but that doesn't affect the principle.

[EvoUK]

I don't care if Muslims are offended by our system of dating.


... So why should we care if you have hissy fits over the BCE and CE usage..?

[Pilgrim]

Really, who give a crap which way you call it? You know, the whole "a rose by any other name is still a rose" principle.

CE and BCE are the commonly accepted academic designations now-a-days so in an academic setting it makes sense to use those terms, but really, who cares?

[A-Man]

... So why should we care if you have hissy fits over the BCE and CE usage..?

Sorry, I didn't know you were a thin skinned Muslim.

[Darth Executor]

On the other hand, I can see how people of other religions, or none, might be offended by it.

I don't. Care to elaborate?

[A-Man]

So what? You don't care if you offend people?



In certain areas, no not at all. In some areas yes. The Gospel itself is offensive to many. That doesn't mean I shouldn't discuss it.

[Alien]

Really, who give a crap which way you call it? You know, the whole "a rose by any other name is still a rose" principle.

CE and BCE are the commonly accepted academic designations now-a-days so in an academic setting it makes sense to use those terms, but really, who cares?

Someone must have have cared or they wouldn't have introduced the new terminology. I agree that there are more important things to worry about.

[Alien]

I don't. Care to elaborate?

I thought I explained that. "AD" means "in the year of Our Lord" and that means Jesus. Do you need any further explanation?

[Alien]

In certain areas, no not at all. In some areas yes. The Gospel itself is offensive to many. That doesn't mean I shouldn't discuss it.

Fair enough.

[Darth Executor]

I thought I explained that.

You didn't.

"AD" means "in the year of Our Lord" and that means Jesus.

I know. :ahem:

Do you need any further explanation?

No, I need an explanation, period. To be more specific, I want to know how:

1) AD is OFFENSIVE (I can understand why someone would not want to use it, but I'd love to know how this is offensive).

2) BC is offensive. I don't buy your painful explanation of how it's automatically offensive because AD is as well. One could replace AD with CE and keep BC intact.

3) Before Christian Era is offensive.

[EvoUK]

Sorry, I didn't know you were a thin skinned Muslim.

Don't be deliberately obtuse.

The point being that if you don't care if something offends someone, or at best doesn't even remotely apply to them (AD not applying to anyone who wasn't christian), then why should people care if you're offended/whatever by the usage of CE and BCE?

[Zguy28]

Rhetorical question:

How many people do you know who use BCE/CE vs. BC/AD?

[A-Man]

Don't be deliberately obtuse.

The point being that if you don't care if something offends someone, or at best doesn't even remotely apply to them (AD not applying to anyone who wasn't christian), then why should people care if you're offended/whatever by the usage of CE and BCE?

Perhaps I was being accidently obtuse.
I never said I didn't care "if something offends someone". You may or may not represent "people" in this instance, I don't know. I never said I was offended, either, I disagreed with someone. Was I ever addressing you?
I think not.

[A-Man]

Rhetorical question:

How many people do you know who use BCE/CE vs. BC/AD?

If that is a rhetorical question, then the answer is obvious.

[Alien]

No, I need an explanation, period. To be more specific, I want to know how:

1) AD is OFFENSIVE (I can understand why someone would not want to use it, but I'd love to know how this is offensive).

Hmmm. If you are not Christian and the date has a Christian message imbedded in it, might you prefer it didn't? What level of "offence" is appropriate is debatable, I suppose.


2) BC is offensive. I don't buy your painful explanation of how it's automatically offensive because AD is as well. One could replace AD with CE and keep BC intact.

Painful? I felt no pain when typing it.

It's part of the same system, that's all.


3) Before Christian Era is offensive.

I said was was less offensive. It still has 'Christ' in it.

I don't know why you find this so difficult to understand. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I thought I had at least made myself clear.

[Alien]

Rhetorical question:

How many people do you know who use BCE/CE vs. BC/AD?

Heh, a rhetorical question is one where the speaker is not expecting an answer from his audience. :grin:

But I'll answer it anyway. From my own experience only, for AD/CE dates, most people don't use either. BC/BCE is used mostly in writing, and BCE seems to be gaining popularity. In other words, I see it used quite a lot.

[sylas]

Heh, a rhetorical question is one where the speaker is not expecting an answer from his audience. :grin:

But I'll answer it anyway. From my own experience only, for AD/CE dates, most people don't use either. BC/BCE is used mostly in writing, and BCE seems to be gaining popularity. In other words, I see it used quite a lot.

Another one I see a fair bit is BP -- before present. This works find on the scale of a couple of hundred thousand years; the difference of a couple of thousand one way or the other is minor. And for closer scales, as long as you have a fix on the paper you have a fix on the time it is speaking of. This is useful particularly when dealing with continuous physical processes over a span of time; where it may be more important to focus on how long something has been going on rather than pin down a moment some even occured.

Several examples cropped up in the global warming threads, when looking at long term climate trends. See, for example, this WIkipedia article on the Atlantic period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_(period)), in which dates are given either as BP or BC. If you google for "8200 BP" you will get an idea of just how common this convention is. There are 3210 hits, and the first pages related mainly to a well known sudden cooling event (http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html), in when mean temperatures dropped 2 to 5 degrees over around about 100 years or a bit more; about 8,200 years ago.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Darth Executor]

Hmmm. If you are not Christian and the date has a Christian message imbedded in it, might you prefer it didn't? What level of "offence" is appropriate is debatable, I suppose.


Prefer it didn't and considering it "offensive" are two completely different things. If I was in a foreing nation and they had the picture of one of their gods on their money I would still use it and not be offended.

It still has 'Christ' in it.


:hrm:
So something having Christ in it is offensive? You realise that by your broad definition of "offensive", anything that isn't like by someone is "offensive", and as such the word offensive no longer has any real meaning. Furthermore, you said this earlier:

I depends. It has to be decided on a case by case basis. This one is doesn't seem unreasonable to me; obviously you disagree.

You don't think being offended by the mention of Christ is unreasonable? What would you consider unreasonable offense? Would somebody who is offended because Christians don't jump on his sword be considered unreasonable? Where do you draw the line? Do you even draw the line?

[Losvedir]

*esc* kills everything you've typed in IE???????? Stupid browser, I hate using it. Anyway, round 2:

I don't think "Before Christian Era" should be offensive at all. It's just stating a fact, and just having Christ or Christian in the name shouldn't be offensive.

However, A.D. as "In the year of our Lord" can be offensive. It's making two claims: that Jesus is Lord, and that he's my Lord, which isn't the case for everyone.

Maybe "offensive" isn't the right word. Maybe it "irritates" some people, or at the very least is a sub-optimal choice for the label. So why not change it? Things shouldn't remain the way they are for the sole reason that that's all they've ever been. And when it's this easy to make a change, (and that change doesn't negatively effect me, as a Christian, in any way), then why not?

[XaositectCrayon]

this gives me an idea for a topic....

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I like it fine, but then, I'm a Christian. Jesus is "My Lord".

On the other hand, I can see how people of other religions, or none, might be offended by it. Christians don't own the date, and "CE" is not offensive to me. Is it to you?Well in a way Christ does own it, which is why it started when it did. "Common era" fails as an explanation of the significance of the number. How about SCWIRTMOD for the heathen? 2006 years Since Christ whom I reject to my own damnation.

[bandecoot]

I propose that we reset the calendar so that 1859 becomes year 0 and that way we can keep BC and AD. That being Before Charles and After Darwin.


I use both terms interchangably. Sometimes its rhetorically more elegant to use BC/AD other times the BCE/CE works just fine.

When the style guides make a determination on which is correct I will follow that. So far I dont think anyone has even mentioned it.

[Alien]

You don't think being offended by the mention of Christ is unreasonable? What would you consider unreasonable offense? Would somebody who is offended because Christians don't jump on his sword be considered unreasonable? Where do you draw the line? Do you even draw the line?

You're starting to get in my face and I don't like it. This will be my last response.

The mere mention of Christ should not be offensive to anyone. Having the start of our entire dating system be determined by the birth of someone that you don't believe in, and having that person referred to as "Our Lord" might be offensive to some. Apparently there was some who didn't like it, or the new terminology wouldn't have been introduced.

[wfaber]

And nobody's offended by the fact that we universally use Arabic numbers?

[Pilgrim]

And nobody's offended by the fact that we universally use Arabic numbers?
I'd b e willing to lay down money that you would have a fit if the numbers read something like this. A1 A2, where a=Allah. And besides, now that I think about it, your whole satement is a non-sequitor. Arab does not equal religion.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

And nobody's offended by the fact that we universally use Arabic numbers?

It disgusts me to no end. In fact, it's C times more offensive than the BC/AD system of dating.

[wfaber]

Why don't we just call this year AUC MMDCCLXIX?

[XaositectCrayon]

Why don't we just call this year AUC MMDCCLXIX?
because it sounds like a wizard from some random alternate universe

[Nicholas]

Why don't we just call this year AUC MMDCCLXIX?

If we do can I start yelling 'Hail Caesar' as well?

[A-Man]

It disgusts me to no end. In fact, it's C times more offensive than the BC/AD system of dating.

:lol:

[Darth Executor]

You're starting to get in my face and I don't like it. This will be my last response.

I was "in your face" from the beginning and you didn't have a problem with it until I caught you in a trap of absurdity and you have now fabricated an excuse to squeeze your way out of it.

The mere mention of Christ should not be offensive to anyone. Having the start of our entire dating system be determined by the birth of someone that you don't believe in, and having that person referred to as "Our Lord" might be offensive to some. Apparently there was some who didn't like it, or the new terminology wouldn't have been introduced.

I rest my case. You have repeated this several times while failing to give me what I asked: the REASON why it's offensive. Obviously somebody didn't like it. I propose somebody didn't like it because they hate Christ/Christianity and this is what your own responses hint at, but your political correctness (the extreme type many people complain about) seems to be getting in your way. That you think such an attitude is understandable and reasonable leaves me with many questions that, by the looks of it, will remain unanswered.

[Pilgrim]

I was "in your face" from the beginning and you didn't have a problem with it until I caught you in a trap of absurdity and you have now fabricated an excuse to squeeze your way out of it.



I rest my case. You have repeated this several times while failing to give me what I asked: the REASON why it's offensive. Obviously somebody didn't like it. I propose somebody didn't like it because they hate Christ/Christianity and this is what your own responses hint at, but your political correctness (the extreme type many people complain about) seems to be getting in your way. That you think such an attitude is understandable and reasonable leaves me with many questions that, by the looks of it, will remain unanswered.
I can see why someone for whom Jesus is not Lord would not want to say, "In the year of my Lord." That doesn't seem to hard to grasp. I wouldn't want to say, "In the year of Allah my master."

[Darth Executor]

I can see why someone for whom Jesus is not Lord would not want to say, "In the year of my Lord." That doesn't seem to hard to grasp. I wouldn't want to say, "In the year of Allah my master."

Read the entire thread or don't post at all. This has been addressed already.

[Pilgrim]

Read the entire thread or don't post at all. This has been addressed already.
Seriously man, it's like you prefer to just be rude. What's the deal with that? If you don't like people expressing their opinions in a thread then don't post here. You act as if addressing somthing is the same as resolving it.

(self edited)

[Johnny MacManky]

I can see why someone for whom Jesus is not Lord would not want to say, "In the year of my Lord." That doesn't seem to hard to grasp. I wouldn't want to say, "In the year of Allah my master."

In some ways I think the true offense is that no one should declare Jesus as Lord unless He truely is their Lord. We Christians rightly should be offended to hear anyone take our Lord's Name in vain. Isn't the use of AD (by non Christians) a formalised means of such blasphemy?

[Pilgrim]

In some ways I think the true offense is that no one should declare Jesus as Lord unless He truely is their Lord. We Christians rightly should be offended to hear anyone take our Lord's Name in vain. Isn't the use of AD (by non Christians) a formalised means of such blasphemy?
That's a really interesting point. I've not really thought about that side of it before.

[Darth Executor]

Seriously man, it's like you prefer to just be rude.

Well, I can't argue with that. This is a special case however:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1611116

What's the deal with that? If you don't like people expressing their opinions in a thread then don't post here. You act as if addressing somthing is the same as resolving it.

(self edited)

What opinion? If you had read the thread (you haven't, if you had you'd know that this comment doesn't make any sense whatsoever) you'd know why you're wrong. Since it pains me to waste time with you, allow me to elaborate so that this ends now. In post 39 I said pretty much the same thing you did. In particuolar, I said I can understand why someone would not use AD (AD is not the only objection Alien had, BC and BChristianE were too). My question was "how is AD (and BC, and BCE) offensive?"

For the record, I don't find ""In the year of Allah my master" offensive because unlike you I'm not a tofu eating hippy. I don't have a problem with "the year of the Tiger" either. You won't see me demanding a politically correct calendar when I eat at a Chinese restaurant. You won't see me demanding a politically correct nomenclature for the days of the week. I also hold the opinion that if anybody else is offended by any of these things they need professional help.

[Amazing Rando]

In my own writings and sermons, I tend to deliberately switch back and forth between using BC/AD and BCE/CE depending on who my intended audience is. Whereas when I'm addressing the church, or my intended audience is my fellow Christians, I'll use BC/AD. When I'm writing for the general public, or an academic paper to be submitted to a secular university or journal, I'll use CE/BCE. It's a pragmatic thing for me.

Of course, there's also that little snafu where Jesus was actually born sometime between 6 and 4 BC. :dizzy: That poor 4th century monk who created the BC/AD calendar forever doomed Jesus to being born Before Christ.

[Losvedir]

In post 39 I said pretty much the same thing you did. In particuolar, I said I can understand why someone would not use AD (AD is not the only objection Alien had, BC and BChristianE were too). My question was "how is AD (and BC, and BCE) offensive?"


You just seem to have a different definition of offensive then the rest of us, I guess. From dictionary.com:

1. Disagreeable to the senses: an offensive odor.
2. Causing anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront: an offensive gesture.

It doesn't have to be that serious to be offensive. There are different levels of displeasure. So when you say: "I said I can understand why someone would not use AD." Why would they not use AD?

[Darth Executor]

You just seem to have a different definition of offensive then the rest of us, I guess. From dictionary.com:

1. Disagreeable to the senses: an offensive odor.
2. Causing anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront: an offensive gesture.

1. is literal and irrelevant.

2. I didn't say they're not offensive. I wanted to know WHY they are offensive and whether it's reasonable to be offended. When someone uses the word offensive I expect them to have a reasonable reason otherwise they will be ignored/mocked depending on my mood. Alien seems to think that it's reasonable to be offended at the mention of Christ.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

2. I didn't say they're not offensive. I wanted to know WHY they are offensive and whether it's reasonable to be offended. When someone uses the word offensive I expect them to have a reasonable reason otherwise they will be ignored/mocked depending on my mood. Alien seems to think that it's reasonable to be offended at the mention of Christ.As an observer of this pointless chain of acrimony, I'm just sticking my nose in to say that I got the impression that the offence was said to be geneated not merely by the mention of Christ, but by the claim that He is our Lord. Additionally, Jewish people have a reason to be offended at even calling Jesus "Christ."

They're all wrong, but that's why people might be offended.

[Darth Executor]

As an observer of this pointless chain of acrimony, I'm just sticking my nose in to say that I got the impression that the offence was said to be geneated not merely by the mention of Christ, but by the claim that He is our Lord. Additionally, Jewish people have a reason to be offended at even calling Jesus "Christ."

They're all wrong, but that's why people might be offended.

AD is not the only subject of discussion. BC and the Christian BCE are as well.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

AD is not the only subject of discussion. BC and the Christian BCE are as well.
OK, so you you said, "My question was "how is AD (and BC, and BCE) offensive?" Do you agree that there is a reason why AD is offensive to people? If so, less argument would be had if you'd tell alien that explicitly so he knows that you've conceded that particular point.

I did, however, note that referring to Jesus as "Christ" has the ability to offend many people. This covers BC.

I'd also suggest that if we abided by a system of dating based on the birth of Muhammed, and all dates prior to then were BEP, "before the era of the prophet," I suspect you'd object, and I think that objection would arise because you're not Muslim.


I'm not at all suggesting that it is wrong to call dates BC, Before the Christian Era, the year of our Lord or anything like that. The question was just why might people be offended.

[Darth Executor]

OK, so you you said, "My question was "how is AD (and BC, and BCE) offensive?" Do you agree that there is a reason why AD is offensive to people? If so, less argument would be had if you'd tell alien that explicitly so he knows that you've conceded that particular point.

You seem awfully confused. The issue isn't whether it's offensive or not, it's whether it's reasonable to be offended by it. I already pointed out that under a loose definition of offensive everything could be offensive.

I did, however, note that referring to Jesus as "Christ" has the ability to offend many people. This covers BC.

At most, it might offend some Jews, I'll grant you that. On that note, however, the claim that Jesus isn't Christ is the exact opposite and might offend some Christians, which brings us to the question of whether it's reasonable to be offended by someone's religion just because they tell you yours is wrong (something most religions do implicitly) .

I'd also suggest that if we abided by a system of dating based on the birth of Muhammed, and all dates prior to then were BEP, "before the era of the prophet," I suspect you'd object, and I think that objection would arise because you're not Muslim.

Wrong. I would object if we tried to change the curret system to this for the same reason I object to BCE: it's done to remove Christ from it for no reason other than because some people hate him or Christians. If we were using BEP already I wouldn't give a crap any more than I give a crap about the fact that the days of the week are named after Roman gods in my native language.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

You seem awfully confused. The issue isn't whether it's offensive or not, it's whether it's reasonable to be offended by it. I already pointed out that under a loose definition of offensive everything could be offensive.A quick trip down memory lane. you said to someone here: "You have repeated this several times while failing to give me what I asked: the REASON why it's offensive."

Forgive me for thinking that you were asking the reason why people found it offensive. Then I provided a possible reason why people might be offended (exactly as you asked), and you turn around and say: "The issue isn't whether it's offensive or not, it's whether it's reasonable to be offended by it."

That's what you should have said then, and not "give me what I asked: the REASON why it's offensive." You should have said "explain to me why it's reasonable to be offended." A reason can be unreasonable, to be sure, but I'm hardly "awfully confused" for merely taking you at your word.
At most, it might offend some Jews, I'll grant you that.How generous. You didn't concede that AD might offend those who don't believe Jesus is Lord. Do you concede that? If not, why not? I'm not asking if you think the term ought not be used, I'm just asking if you accept that people have a reason to be offended by it.
On that note, however, the claim that Jesus isn't Christ is the exact opposite and might offend some Christians, which brings us to the question of whether it's reasonable to be offended by someone's religion just because they tell you yours is wrong (something most religions do implicitly) .Do you think CE is actually a denial that Jesus is the Christ? If not, what were you referring to when you referred to "the claim that Jesus isn't Christ"?
Wrong. I would object if we tried to change the curret system to this for the same reason I object to BCE: it's done to remove Christ from it for no reason other than because some people hate him or Christians. If we were using BEP already I wouldn't give a crap any more than I give a crap about the fact that the days of the week are named after Roman gods in my native language.You missed the point. I'm not advocating change at all. I was only explaining why some people find it offensive. The counter example simply said that you'd be offended if your country used a system of dating that said "before Muhammed the true prophet of God" (too lazy to use the same wording this time). You say "wrong"? Really? You wouldn't be offended?

Why would you not be offended if your country, in fact all historians, dated things by referring to their year "before Muhammed the true prophet of God."

EDIT: And even if you would not be offended, do you understand that some people would have a reason to be offended, even if their ideological reasons for change were wrong?


And one more time - before you post, remember that I am not advocating change.

[Darth Executor]

A quick trip down memory lane. you said to someone here: "You have repeated this several times while failing to give me what I asked: the REASON why it's offensive."

Forgive me for thinking that you were asking the reason why people found it offensive. Then I provided a possible reason why people might be offended, and you turn around and say: "The issue isn't whether it's offensive or not, it's whether it's reasonable to be offended by it."

You provided me with a "reason" that's been mentioned several times before your post, one of which was in MY OWN POST. That should be hint enough that your own comment served absolutely no purpose. I asked ALIEN specifically because I wanted to lead him to the obvious conclusion.

That's what you should have said then, and not "give me what I asked: the REASON why it's offensive." A reason can be irrational, to be sure, but I'm hardly "deeply confused" for merely taking you at your word.

No, you're probably deeply confused because you either skimmed through this thread or didn't read it at all. Let's recap:

Post 8: Alien claims it's good that people changed BC and AD because people "are likely" to be offended by AD because they don't believe Jesus is Lord. He then says Before Christian Era is better than BC but not by much. In this post he makes the exact same argumet you made later which leads me to believe you weren't really paying attention.
Post 10: Alien can see why people might be offended by AD.
Post 26: I claim I don't see why people might be offended (this is obviously not true, but if you follow the discussion you would see where I'm going).
Post 29: Alien claims he explained it already and asks if I want him to elaborate.
Post 30: I specifically ask how the terms are offensive and point out that just because people might not want to use something doesn't necessarily make it offensive.
Post 36: Alien admits they're offensive because they have something Christian in them.
Post 39: I point out that alien's definition of offensive is almost useless because everything that isn't liked by someone becomes "offensive". In this post it's also pretty clear what the actual issue is: whether the offense is reasonable.
Post 44: Alien runs away but has little to fear because the three musketeers will soon jump in.
Post 52: Final nail in the coffin.
Post 53: A portal to another plane of existance is opened inside the coffin and Athos bursts out of it repeating an earlier argumet with no regard to the progression of the discussion.
Post 60: Porthos comes through the portal with the PC definition of offensive while missing the point completely.
Post 62: Aramis(you) torpedo dives through the portal repeating post 8 to a degree and adding the jews part (which, frankly, is the only thing that we should be discussing since everything else was done already).

You will find that I never actually deny that BC and AD is offensive. I led Alien to admitting the reason why it's offensive, then pointed out it's not really reasonable.




How generous. You didn't concede that AD might offend those who don;t believe Jesus is Lord. Do you concede that? If not, why not? I'm not asking if you think the term ought not be used, I'm just asking if you accept that people have a reason to be offended by it.

How retarded. I didn't "conceed" to it because I never disagreed with this point to begin with.

Do you think CE is actually a denial that Jesus is the Christ? If not, what were you referring to when you referred to "the claim that Jesus isn't Christ"?

I do think CE is a denial that Jesus is Christ because of its motivation, but no, that's not what I'm referring to. Jews being offended by the mention of Jesus as Christ is a statement that Jesus is NOT Christ and merely by being offended by it, they automatically offend some people who think Jesus IS Christ.

You missed the point. I'm not advocating change at all. I was only explaining why some people find it offensive.

Your "explanation" was given by Alien in more detail and it's what sparked this debate.

The counter example simply said that you'd be offended if your country used a system of dating that said "before Muhammed the true prophet of God" (too lazy to use the same wording this time). You say "wrong"? Really? You wouldn't be offended?

No.

Why would you not be offended if your country, in fact all historians, dated things by referring to their year "before Muhammed the true prophet of God."

Because it isn't a big deal. I simply can't bring myself to care. bandecoot said earlier that he uses BC and AD sometimes, so you might want to get the same opinion from someone who actually is in that situation. If Muslims had been the ones who made up our dating system, I'd say they have the right to name it whatever they want.

EDIT:: And even if you would not be offended, do you understand that some people would have a reason to be offended, even if their ideological reasons for change were wrong?

What was the point of this edit? You asked this question already in the same post. :doh:

And on more time - before you post, remember that I am not advocating change.

I don't recall saying you advocate change and don't worry, my ADD isn't as bad as yours. :wink:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

A question was asked in this thread. I answered it. This is your reply, laced with irrelevant jabs and insults?

Why did it have to end up like that? Did you know that I actually expected more of you? Boy was that an overestimate. Well done. You've made an ass of yourself, lost respect, and lost any claim to my time. What a piece of work you turned out to be! I had been tempted to think of you as one of the good guys.

:thumbd:

[bandecoot]

Well done. You've made an ass of yourself, lost respect, and lost any claim to my time. What a pievce of work you turned out to be!


Took you THIS long? The thesis must have dragged attention away.


Bwahahahahahahh I just looked at what you responded to. He Uses ME as a source! You see every now and again someone quotes him and I see things like "bandecoot has delusions of relevance"


not only an ass but an inconsistant hypocrite.

[Darth Executor]

A question was asked in this thread. I answered it. This is your reply, laced with irrelevant jabs and insults?

:hrm: First, there are no insults in my post. There are irrelevant jabs but there were irrelevant jabs in your own post so I'm not sure why you're complaining..

Why did it have to end up like that?

Because you had to be a condescending ass in the post I replied to? You might or might not have noticed but both of us have a tendancy to irritate the people we respond to because of our writing style. Maybe you should grow a thicker skin.

Did you know that I actually expected more of you? Boy was that an overestimate. Well done. You've made an ass of yourself, lost respect, and lost any claim to my time. What a piece of work you turned out to be! I had been tempted to think of you as one of the good guys.

:thumbd:

:sigh:

You seem to have a really short memory. We've been in arguments before, where real insults were exchanged and you weren't this much of a tofu eating hippy then.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

:hrm: First, there are no insults in my post. There are irrelevant jabs but there were irrelevant jabs in your own post so I'm not sure why you're complaining.. Outrightly false! Calling me retarded and making comments about ADD are matched by NOTHING in my comments to you. I am only replying because this needs to be said to you clearly: The fact that you so often get into this type of situation is telling you something about you. Take note.
Because you had to be a condescending ass in the post I replied to? You might or might not have noticed but both of us have a tendancy to irritate the people we respond to because of our writing style. Maybe you should grow a thicker skin.Outrightly false. Look over it again. My complaint was absolutely warranted. Suddenly and with no justification you started spewing forth vitriol. And even now you justify it.

A Christian should care when a sincere brother makes this observation. You brush it off and hold you head high.
You seem to have a really short memory. We've been in arguments before, where real insults were exchanged and you weren't this much of a tofu eating hippy then.
Apparently I do have a short memory. I brought no baggage to this thread, and I don't even recall that other argument. Is that what was driving your attitude?

In any case, Your response was as disheartening as your descent into the mire. I now unsubscribe from this thread, sorry that I ever had hopes of reasonabe dialogue.

[Darth Executor]

Outrightly false! Calling me retarded and making comments about ADD are matched by NOTHING in my comments to you. I am only replying because this needs to be said to you clearly: The fact that you so often get into this type of situation is telling you something about you. Take note.

I didn't call you a retard, you retard :wink:. I was referring to the part I quoted and called it retarded because it was. The complaint about ADD is plain stupid. There was a "smilee" there to make it obvious that it was a joke, and I said I had ADD too if that isn't enough.


Outrightly false. Look over it again. My complaint was absolutely warranted. Suddenly and with no justification you started spewing forth
vitriol. And even now you justify it.

I disagree. I found your condescending tone irritating in your reply, but ignored it because I have read many of your posts and figured it's just a part of you. I also figured that if you can be an ass, then so can I.


A Christian should care when a sincere brother makes this observation. You brush it off and hold you head high.

If I didn't care I wouldn't be bother to reply it.

Apparently I do have a short memory. I brought no baggage to this thread, and I don't even recall that other argument. Is that what was driving your attitude?

This is getting dumb. No, it's not "driving my attitude". I pointed out that we've had worse conflicts before and you didn't turn into a drama queen before, so why do it now?

[Amazing Rando]

I'd also suggest that if we abided by a system of dating based on the birth of Muhammed, and all dates prior to then were BEP, "before the era of the prophet," I suspect you'd object, and I think that objection would arise because you're not Muslim.


I know for a fact that Muslims do have an alternative calendar based on the year of Mohhammed's emigration from Medina to Mecca. Islamic Calendar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_calendar). The Romans used the supposed date of the founding of Rome as their central point of history. Christians attempt to use the date of the birth of Christ to delineate the center of history, consistent with our faith convictions (even though we got the date wrong!). Many independant cultures and religions have created their own unique system of dating based on what they value the most. While I certainly believe in the primacy and veracity of the claims about Christ (hence my appreciation for the attempt to delineate history in BC/AD), I do see the importance of people of different cultures having a "neutral" dating system to use to facilitate communication across the cultural and religious divides- that is the primary value of BCE and CE in my opinion.

Theonomy- in your own writing, which do you use most? Do you stick with one system consistently, or do you alternate as I do?

[Amazing Rando]

Does anyone besides me find it at all amusing and/or ironic that Jesus was born "Before Christ?"

I've heard people cite that fact alone as sufficient reason in their minds not to use BC/AD. :nsm:

[A-Man]

Does anyone besides me find it at all amusing and/or ironic that Jesus was born "Before Christ?"

:lol:

Only if that were a true statement.

[Johnny MacManky]

Does anyone besides me find it at all amusing and/or ironic that Jesus was born "Before Christ?"

I've heard people cite that fact alone as sufficient reason in their minds not to use BC/AD. :nsm:

:lol:

Only if that were a true statement.

Are there any Biblical Scholars who would hold that Jesus actually was born in 1AD/CE? I understand that, in this system, there is no 'year zero', so 1AD is preceded by 1BC.

AFAIK, a date prior to 4BC to widely accepted.

[Darth Executor]

You see every now and again someone quotes him and I see things like "bandecoot has delusions of relevance"


This is a lie. The quote bandecoot refers to was uttered in this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68413&page=2&pp=16&highlight=delusions+of+relevance

but it was never actually quoted by anyone. The only way 'tardedcoot could have seen it is if he had clicked on the "view post" link. Of course, he can't admit that because it would imply he cares about me. :hug:

[Amazing Rando]

Are there any Biblical Scholars who would hold that Jesus actually was born in 1AD/CE? I understand that, in this system, there is no 'year zero', so 1AD is preceded by 1BC.

AFAIK, a date prior to 4BC to widely accepted.

I don't think anyone today would say Jesus was born in year 1. Herod the Great is known to have died in 4 BC- the most common guess I've heard for Jesus' birth is 6-4 BC.

[kawaika]

I don't see why people would whine about BC and AD. Our days of the week, are named after gods. Our months are named after gods. Some planets are named after gods. Constellations are named after gods. What difference does it make if we have one more thing named after a god?

Btw, I recently went to Grand Canyon and there were many spots in that area named after gods. Guess what? It didn't bother me one bit.

I'll continue to use BC and AD. And the names of the days or the week. And...