Skip to comments.
Use of B.C. and A.D. Faces Changing Times
Houston Chronicle ^
| April 23, 2005
| Michael Gormley
Posted on 04/25/2005 7:18:19 AM PDT by Irontank
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: Irontank
"When Jews or Muslims have to put Christ in the middle of our calendar ... that's difficult for us,"
Well, whether you call it BC/AD or BCE/CE, it still pivots around the birth of Jesus. And what the hell is "common era" supposed to mean? What's "common" about it?
To: Shanda
I am 68 years old and was taught in grammar school that BC meant before the common era.
It really had nothing at all to do with bias in my 'olden days'.
22
posted on
04/25/2005 8:00:53 AM PDT
by
OldFriend
(MAJOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH.....INSPIRATIONAL)
To: OldFriend
Since the date was first established based on the birth of Christ, then any alteration of the name would sure sound like bias to me.
You must have attended a really strange school.
23
posted on
04/25/2005 8:03:42 AM PDT
by
Shanda
To: Irontank
"They are hard for non-Jews, because they assume a centrality of Jesus ... it's not offensive, but it's not sensitive to my religious sensibilities." Oh Bite me.
To: Irontank
In A.D. 2101...
...war was beginning.
To: fishtank
It does date from creation? Now that I hadn't realized ... though I had some Jewish boys I used to babysit school me on the calendar once and did have some general idea what year it was.
26
posted on
04/25/2005 8:13:28 AM PDT
by
Askel5
(† Theresa Marie Schindler, Martyr for the Gospel of Life, pray for us †)
To: Dallas59
The main reason I like BCE and CE is that from historical evidence Christ was born in 4 BC and crucified in 32 AD...so he was born before he was born? BCE & CE solves the problem of changing the calenders.
27
posted on
04/25/2005 8:18:28 AM PDT
by
D Rider
To: Irontank
Wehn given an option, I always fill out - Year of our Lord Two housand and Five.
28
posted on
04/25/2005 8:20:54 AM PDT
by
SengirV
To: D Rider
The main reason I like BCE and CE is that from historical evidence Christ was born in 4 BC and crucified in 32 AD...so he was born before he was born? BCE & CE solves the problem of changing the calenders.Opps! should read crucified in 28 AD. sorry
29
posted on
04/25/2005 8:21:49 AM PDT
by
D Rider
To: Irontank
Dionysius Exiguus calculated the date of Christ's birth (inaccurately) but it took a long time before it was common to date from that point...and I don't think B.C. dates were used before the Renaissance. If anyone objects to "B.C." tell them it stands for "backwards counting."
It would have been easier if an earlier event such as the creation or the birth of Abraham had been chosen as the starting point, at least for dealing with Greek and Roman history.
One thing we can count on--the comic strip B.C. won't be renamed B.C.E.
To: Irontank
Hah! They can change the labels all they want, but until they change the numbers themselves, they won't change the meaning."Common Era", indeed. Daddy, why is it "common"?
To: fishtank
The current year is 5765This is bad news ... I'm apparently either 3,760 years ahead or behind in my rent. I hope my landlord isn't a Freeper.
32
posted on
04/25/2005 8:54:22 AM PDT
by
layman
(Card Carrying Infidel)
To: Irontank
I use another standard. This year is 63 AD. Before Dean. That's me folk!
AAPC
33
posted on
04/25/2005 9:08:10 AM PDT
by
lawdude
(Liberalism is a mental disease.)
To: Askel5
Given the way Daylights Savings about to be yanked about again, I see no reason not to expect something more along the lines of a Metric, as opposed to monthly, calendar soon enough. The logical thing would be to shift to radiocarbon dates - either Before Present or Present Year.
proposed inst. 55AP (Anno Present)
34
posted on
04/25/2005 9:10:26 AM PDT
by
Oztrich Boy
(What ever crushes individuality is despotism, no matter what name it is called. - J S Mill)
To: Irontank
So B.C.E is short for B.C.?
That makes sense. NOT!
The calendar is not a place to make a political stand, it's how we can all agree on what date it is. Screwing with a system that has worked just fine for a few hundred years is merely begging for trouble.
35
posted on
04/25/2005 9:38:19 AM PDT
by
Triggerhippie
(Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.)
To: Irontank
I've noticed this for about a decade now and I hate it. It's just more PC bulls--t being forced down our throats. Even though I'm not much of a Christian, I very much resent our history and cultural heritage being redefined in this manner.
To: rightwinggoth
37
posted on
04/25/2005 9:52:34 AM PDT
by
Lockbar
(March toward the sound of the guns.)
To: Irontank
I have used BC and AD all my life and don't plan to change.
If someone can't understand it, or deduce it from the context, tough noogies.
38
posted on
04/25/2005 10:30:55 AM PDT
by
Publius6961
(The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
To: Irontank
When I heard that (BCE/CE) I always imagined this exchange with some mr. elite uber-leftist "intellectual"...
"What does CE mean?
"Common Era, as in the years of the modern calender"
"You mean like BC and AD?"
"right"
"So when does CE start"
"The time of Christ"
"I thought that was AD, as in The year of our lord, anno domini"
"No"
"But it begins at the time of Christ, then, right?"
"Yes"
"So then it's AD, not CE, right?"
"No, it's CE.."
"What's it's based on then?"
"The Common Era"
"When did the 'common era' start?"
"The time of Christ"
"But it's not AD then?"
"No"
etc...
39
posted on
04/25/2005 2:44:56 PM PDT
by
Bones75
To: Askel5
Metric years? What's A.D. 2005 in metric?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson