Do you agree with the renaming of our Calendar Eras from AD/BC to BCE/CE?

Fine, but nobody actually knows when. We do know when the "date" calculated to be his birth (but almost certainly wasn't..and is basically just a random date) is. If we're going to use that point in time, we should specify what it is with precision, since dates are a thing of precision, after all

We could either call AD "After the date calculated to be birthday of a historical figure named jesus christ but was definitely not...and is basically just a random date" to be accurate, or something less wordy like "Common era"

I'd opt for the latter rather than the "In the year of our lord" because that one is certainly wrong on at least two coutns(it wasn't the year, and it's pretty unlikey that that guy was a magical being/our lord if he existed at all).

Don't care very much, but people keep asking to justify it. Well the justification for it is just as strong for changing it as for keeping it - at best it's a wash with one being slightly more accurate; I'd opt for accurate. The fact that it moves the needle away from superstition is icing on the cake.

 

I don't expect you to change your opinion no matter how much evidence I provide. You'll simply question the veracity of the proof provided. That's your right I suppose. Nonetheless, there is plethora of evidence that is not "Biblical" that speaks of a "Jesus of Nazereth". This is enough to establish in my mind that historically, Jesus did exist as a man.

http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html
http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow...ere-to-support-the-existence-of-jesus-christ/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

 

Source = Reality?

"Christ" means "anointed" - you can't really say "christ" referring to a person without inherently deeming him magical. The phrase isn't "Before a historical person who most likely existed whom some believe to be the son of almighty god" - it's before christ, as in THE Christ, as in the son of hte magic man up top.

 

Clearly you care a lot. It's an arbitrary date, because of that, accuracy isn't that important, only consistency. It's pretty clear that this is a religious battle to you and that's fine, I don't mind you taking up for your religion just don't sell it as if you don't care. You wouldn't be making the petty argument if you didn't.

 

Fine. How bout Jesus of Nazereth (aka Jesus Christ)? Does this distinction without a difference suit your sensibilities?

You still haven't proven that this person...HOWEVER YOU WANT TO NAME HIM...didn't exist.

 

Not sure how this thread turned into a fight over the divinity of Jesus, but my point was...Christians compose less than a third of the world's population. Asking the other 2/3 of Earth to count time based on the beliefs of Middle Age Christians is more than a bit absurd.

 

After centuries of acceptance of this method of marking time, I find it absurd to change for any reason. Oh and by the way, Muslims accept and believe that Jesus existed and was a very important prophet. That covers about another 1/3rd of the world's population.

 

You haven't proven that he did, nor have you proven when, which makes it sort of ridiculous to make his alleged birthday THE REFERENCE POINT FOR ALL OTHER DATES IN THE FUTURE AND PAST.

Was there a historical figure named jesus on whom the story of the NT is based? I guess the current thinking is yes, based on indirect evidence. But it's not particularly strong, compared to the evidence that others like Augustus Caesar existed (or any of a number of Jesus historical contmporaries), or any of a lot of the billions of folks that have walked the earth since.

Regardless, proving whether or not a historical jesus existed isn't really a prerequisite for naming his fake birthdate (which isn't actually his birthdate if he existed at all) something that is not obviously wrong. Changing the name to something that is more neutral and not obviuosly wrong seems like a positive step to me.

 

You would still be asking them to count time based on the approximated date of Jesus' birth even if you changed the name. If you want to change the time we start the calendar, fine, but I doubt people want to re-learn that many dates.

 

Yes, but they don't believe in his divinity -- there's there's this other fella they base their own calendar upon. And Jews, for that matter, believe he's a heretic, making it a bit insensitive to ask them to cop to blasphemy.

 

Which is why calling it BCE and CE is a nice compromise.

 

It's not even a compromise, it's still basing the date on the miscalculation of Jesus' birth changing the name doesn't change that. Even if you call it the "common era" the natural question is "What began the common era?" and the answer would still be "The common era began on the date once believed to be Jesus' birth". I mean, as long as it's still the basis for the date it makes no difference what you call it.

 

So . . .. Rather than based on something that may or may not have happened. . .
we will chose that same date . .. put a stick in the sand . . . and then call it something else. . . . .



rrrriiiigiggggghhhhhhttttttt

So Much better

"Why did they chose THAT PARTICULAR DATE?" - Kid
"Because it was the date that Jesus christ may or may not have been born." - Parent

We are becoming a nation of Euphemism and Semantics

Rocket River
Rose by any other name

 

Exactly.
This is like someone arguing the pronounciation of Tomato.

Rocket River
sometimes people do ***** just to ***** with other people .. . .and because they can.

 

It's based on a ruling by Pope Gregory in the 16th Century. That's why it's called the Gregorian calendar and not the Jesus calendar. In Jesus' own time time was counted by Roman ceasars, which we no longer have to count time with. And Jesus himself used the Jewish calendar, which is the same one my days off from work are marked by, but I would hardly demand that the rest of the world tell time by bronze age standards.

I'm fine with the Gregorian calendar and I'm fine with the accepted status quo as far as the secular naming convention goes. If you want to revive something like this to fix everything to be totally universal, I'd be cool with it, but it would be a headache to implement.

 

Time, does in fact, exist in other nations as well and most of the people in those places do not subscribe to your religious beliefs and find the practice outdated and offensive. Why shoud you make the demand that they use Middle Age papal terminology that means nothing to them or is blasphemous to them?

 

THIS is why America is falling behind. The lack of religious identity in education. BINGO! :grin:

 

I would rather try the metric system again.

 

It's not different. I'll take modern and archaic views. I'll take Darwinism and creationism, Limbaugh and Maddow. One might be more right than another, but they need to see everything.

 

We are WAY behind powerhouses like Iran and Pakistan. I mean...we even let our women read and write. It's crazy.