B.C. or B.C.E? - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

0 posted 2006-12-08 02:17 PM

Now a days the scholarly are more and more using C.E. (Common Era) and B.C.E (Before the Common Era) as a standard.

Is there a good reason for using this instead of the more traditional B.C. (Before Christ) / A.D (Anno Domini) ?

lifeonly
Junior Member

since 2006-10-18

Posts 18
Ontario, Canada

1 posted 2006-12-08 02:57 PM

I suppose it is more politically correct if we take religion out of how we count time.

Christopher

Moderator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-08-02

Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration

2 posted 2006-12-08 04:02 PM

if the common era refers to the time usually demarked by the birth of christ, then it's still saying the same cake, just different icing.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

3 posted 2006-12-09 10:25 PM

I suppose it is more politically correct if we take religion out of how we count time.

But referring to Christ or a moment of Christ, is referring to just that, not religion.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (12-10-2006 12:12 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

4 posted 2006-12-09 10:54 PM

Christopher

That is a good way to put it.

TyroStar
Junior Member

since 2007-01-31

Posts 38

5 posted 2007-04-17 11:56 PM

"But referring to Christ or a moment of Christ, is referring to just that, not religion. "

Many people do not believe in "Christ" so why would they reference time to that? Every day the idea of a "god" or greater energy from above is becoming more and more "old fashioned". Day by day we are growing more intelligent, and independent as a race. This is much like the petition a couple years ago to take "one nation under god" out of the pledge. I, being an atheist myself, agree completely with advances such as these in modern society.

TyroStar
Junior Member

since 2007-01-31

Posts 38

6 posted 2007-04-17 11:57 PM

Also, as education is becoming less valued as time goes by, i'm sure the new way is much less confusing. Not much to be confused when referencing to "common era".

Not A Poet
Member Elite

since 1999-11-03

Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA

7 posted 2007-04-18 11:51 AM

But as Christopher pointed out, what is the "Common Era" based on?

quote:
Every day the idea of a "god" or greater energy from above is becoming more and more "old fashioned".

Your opinion, of course.

quote:
Day by day we are growing more intelligent, and independent as a race.

There is a great body of evidence to suggest that this statement is untrue. More intelligent, huh?

TyroStar
Junior Member

since 2007-01-31

Posts 38

8 posted 2007-04-18 05:07 PM

Well, we no longer travel via horses, nor do we use candle's for light. We have the internet, and we're having technological advances all the time. Cloning? A terabite? I mean, some middle schoolers don't even use books anymore. They all have hand-helds. A few years ago we couldn't imagine these things.

Not A Poet
Member Elite

since 1999-11-03

Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA

9 posted 2007-04-18 08:40 PM

Based on that response, I rest my case.

rrrstop
Junior Member

since 2007-04-21

Posts 27
Florida

10 posted 2007-04-21 01:15 PM

A bit off-topic, but I still use GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) and not the newer, more Continental & "pc" UTC (French acronym for Universal Coordinated Time, I believe). That's the way it's been for me and that's the way it will stay. Give credit where it's due, I say.

ilsm
Member

since 2008-04-13

Posts 61
UK

11 posted 2008-04-26 09:17 PM

Off-topic, yes, but I have to note (with a degree of smugness) that the French never completely got over the decision to make Greenwich the prime meridian rather than Paris. In fact, I believe ther are some instances when they still use the Paris meridian in preference to Greenwich.

Back to the topic, it is a fact that there are many diffeent calendars, all with diferent dates. In addition to the Gregorian calendar, which is the one we are using, it is a blatantly Christian calendar, and to deny it by refusing to acknowledge that it dates from the (deemed) birth of Christ is illogical and no scholar should tolerate it. He could use the Jewish or Moslem calendars, but he'd have to signify that that was what he was doing, or he could use an entirely new one, based (say) on the date America was discovered.

But we always need to know what point in time he has started counting from.

chopsticks
Senior Member

since 2007-10-02

Posts 888
The US,

12 posted 2008-04-27 08:47 AM

You want to stop using something as benign as B.C./ A.D. to reference time; but you freely use GD to call

on a god you don’t believe in to damn someone.

Btw, have you ever heard Louie Giglio explain time, that invention of man ?

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

13 posted 2009-03-26 11:39 PM

Trying to change something merely because it was religiously motivated would lead to a fair degree of absurdity right? Unless you want to rename Thor'sday to something sterile and insipid like penta-day.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

14 posted 2009-04-18 03:12 AM

I always thought the numerical names september, october, november, december were rather useless and now nonsensical since the numbernames don't correspond with the actual numbers of the months to which we refer. Better indeed were the old English names: Holy Month (September), Winterfilleth ("Winter's fullmoon month: October), Blootmonth ("Sacrafice-month", November), Ere Yulemonth (The first Yulemonth, December, January was the second Yulemonth).

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

15 posted 2009-04-19 05:01 AM

     If it doesn't matter and it's such a tiny thing, I am surprised that folks don't come up with the use of the Islamic dating system, which certainly would please many folks.  This would be, what?, the year 1400 something, wouldn't it?  We could adopt the Hebrew calendar, which has the advantage of being much the oldest, though all those lunar calculations would drive me personally a bit to distraction.  The problem with any of these, is, of course, that they promote some sort of religious conflict, which will be pretty much denied by proponents of the faith advancing their position.

     The default position is to use the calendar that's more or less become the standard, but to try to take away the cultural imperialism that other religions and folkways tend to experience when they have to take another of those western Christian forced feedings that they are periodically required to grim and swallow as if there was nothing unusual about that.  For the Western Christians, or at least many of them, there is nothing wrong with that; everything is the way it should be.

     Occasional Westerners who may be Atheists or Agnostics or non-Christians of one sort or another will be familiar with the feelings that I speak of here.  Others may be shaking their heads in complete and stunned bewilderment.  There is, if fact, nothing wrong with taking an arbitrary Christmas as the beginning of year One; it simply works better for everybody, as opposed to simply those folks who are Christians, to think of it as the time we all agreed to start counting together; or, for Goodness' sake, The Common Era.  The time that nobody's really figured a classy way of describing that happened before that, well, Gee, Before The Common Era seems good enough for Government work.

     It's probably the least upsetting alternative for the whole bunch of us, as opposed to selected bunches of us taken one at a time.  Of course if you really need an issue to make things more difficult than they absolutely have to be, and to cause resentment that really doesn't need to be there, feel free.  I always thought that C.E. and B.C.E. sound a bit labored anyway, having only been introduced to them when I was about eight years old, and used to the B.C. and A.D. already.  I still think, though, that despite their awkwardness, they are, for the reasons I spoke about above, better.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

16 posted 2009-04-21 01:22 AM

I am a bit inclined to think A.D should be changed though. Anno Domini on its own makes it sound as if it still is the year of the lord or as if the lord is 2009 years old. More correctly it should be anno ab incarnatione domini "in the year from the incarnation of the lord", (this is the way it shows up in Bede). 2009 anno ab incarnatione domini (or A.A.I.D.) "in year 2009 (or the 2009th year) from the incarnation of the lord".

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

17 posted 2009-04-21 05:22 AM

Ess? Can I ask you something? Oh hell, you know I will...

I was just thinking that parents teach their children time. I'm curious though, if you are suggesting that parents should (ought) whatever--

should we teach a different scheme of time measurement to our children that might put them out of the mainstream world?

(I am not trying to pick on you.)

I happened to be considering this thought as I pondered with my own kids time and goal-orientation(s). I pointed out that since they began grade school, they always knew what they'd be doing next year.

Until graduation.

I behooved m'self recently, as I explained to my daughter, that we were in the same boat of cliche. I have no idea what I will be doing after she graduates high school this spring, either.

This has nothing to do with your question and I don't care.

*chuckle*

I just like to fuss with you.

I have no idea why.

I also make it a point to use the pronoun "I" at least three times in a row, and nod, just to fuss with you.

But I love ya, yanno.

I do.

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.