Amaleq13

That is correct. Years are still measured according to the number of days they contain.

I can't stop anyone from harboring paranoid delusions but there is absolutely nothing "anti-Christian" about avoiding thoroughly Christian terminology to identify an essentially arbitrary division in counting the years of human civilization.

Ben C Smith

Let me go on the record as stating that I really, really hate the BCE/CE way of dating.

It is not that it is anti-Christian; it is that it is Christian in substance (that is, it is the same thing, year for year, as BC and AD) but not Christian in name (that is, it just gets rid of the words Christ and Domini, or Lord). I am not in favor of keeping the substance but changing the name just to be universal.

If one wants to avoid using an avowedly Christian dating method (and I can certainly sympathize with the sentiment), I think one should use one that was never Christian, such as AUC. Saying something non-Christian but meaning something Christian is just wrong, IMVHO.

Ben.

Magdlyn

Your submittion is beautiful, mens_sana.

Amaleq13

I agree that it is ultimately a superficial change. Any book for laymen, however, would probably require a conversion chart in the back.

Cege

I've been trying to sustain a discussion on the book/s of Samuel here if anyone's interested in jumping in.

I certainly welcome any dating, or any other discussion. The thread is currently at chapter 5-6.

spin

The calendar we use is Roman. The system we use for naming the days is ultimately Roman in conception. The date represented by anno domini 1 is based on an erroneous calculation which places Jesus's birth four years later than it happened. The only thing overtly christian about the dating system is the terms BC and AD. Thus the date of the BC/AD change over actually represents nothing, though it has been used as though it did for many centuries. One cannot help the errors, but due to the generally accepted character of the date, it has been used for convenience by perhaps all countries It is not the significance of the date that is important, it's the compatibility reasoning. If countries use the same starting point they'll obviously be talking about the same year. All that's left is a name which now has little to do with that focal date.

For the sake of international use and of communication with other religions a means of referring to the dates before and after the divide that wouldn't have the inbuilt reference to a religion at the cost of others would satisfy. So you get rid of the inappropriate naming and call the eras, as do most academic disciplines, before the common era and, simply, the common era.

The only reason to keep the name is for our culture's religious purposes which are irrelevant to other cultures with different religions and are now irrelevant to many non-religionists and foreign cultures alike.

As the date no longer represents anything, and it's reason to be is erroneous, a simple name change would render the dating suitable to be used by many of the world's people as a unifying means to refer to time.

(Suggesting that some other starting point be used with the name change seems to be fundamentally silly.)


spin

Minimalist

Nobody likes a smartass moderator!!!!

Robert Byers

To everyone this is a moral issue as well as a issue of the peoples will.
B.C. /A.D are SO the measures of time used forever by Christiandom and all nations and peoples throoughout long long history.
It reflects the faith, the idenity, and common stamp of western civilization in all her doings where dates came up on a trillion zillion exchanges of human events and relationships.

Yes it is up to the people in their respective nations to have and hold the moral right to define their weights and measures.
If the claim of the common peple and nations doesn't impress you then theres nothing I can say that will.

Any attempt to change B.C to B.C.E or B.Y.E.R.S etc is null and void in authority no matter iof it is is used in certain circles presumptiously.

To be exclusive of the peoples decisions is only inclusive of tyrants.
Yup the decent thing is to let mankind decide for mankind.
Until further authoritative notice our dates are B.C etc are the moral and legal law.
Resistance is arrogant and pompous and tyranical.
Infidels have rules and regulations they should submit to also.
Its not that oppresive. Your way oppreses us.
Robert Byers
Toronto, Ontario

Amaleq13

Forever? Really? I'm afraid I must apologize. I have mistaken you for someone who knows what he is talking about.

(emphasis mine)
"This was introduced about the year 527 by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk resident at Rome, who fixed its starting point in the year 753 from the foundation of Rome, in which year, according to his calculation, the birth of Christ occurred....His system was adopted but gradually, first in Italy, then in other parts of Christendom. England would appear to have been among the earliest regions to have made use of it, under the influence of the Roman missioners, as it is found in Saxon charters of the seventh century. In Gaul it made its appearance only in the eighth, and its use did not become general in Europe until after A.D. 1000; accordingly in French the term millésime was frequently used to signify a date A.D. In Spain, although not unknown as early as the seventh century, the use of the Christian Era, as will presently be shown, did not become general until after the middle of the fourteenth century." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03738a.htm

I think this digression has gone on long enough. Let's return to thread topic.

spin

It's sad to say but your views are inconsequential. You and the oppressive regime you represent have been passed by. Dinosaur thinking will not change the issue. Scholarly circles have abandoned the bias of religious intrusion at least in the case of dating and use BCE and CE. It just takes a while for things to trickle down.


spin