[CuePee]

...Supporters of the Common Era alternative say that it is unfair to force a religious system on those who do not share its values. Indeed, many of those using the current AD/BC system do not do so out of choice, but out of several centuries of the Western world’s political, cultural and often military domination. By replacing the words 'Anno Domini' - meaning 'Year of our Lord' - with the more neutral 'Common Era', it is argued that the calendar system becomes less offensive, and less culturally damaging.

Of course, the Common Era method is by no means without its detractors. To many, it is the epitome of 'political correctness gone mad' or a pointless attack on a traditional, yet now meaningless to many, term. As the numbering of years is unchanged between systems, it has been argued that merely changing 'Anno Domini' to 'Common Era' does not address the fundamentals of the problem...

here

Several jurisdictions are quietly replacing BC with BCE to remove any implied religious inference.

[Grebdron]

So BC = non-PC?


BS.

Fuck! This is getting confusing!

[Stranger on a Train]

I had a history teacher in high school who used BCE/CE. At the time, I thought it was stupid.

Still do.

[El Grego]

dude, I learned that like 8 years ago while in Catholic school. ACE and BCE are fine with me.

[Fritolaid]

I prefer the technical terms "old" and "really fuckin' old".

Example: "Wow, that think is old!"

"No, according to scientists, it is really fuckin' old."

See!

[Stranger on a Train]

Originally Posted by Fritolaid

I prefer the technical terms "old" and "really fuckin' old".

Example: "Wow, that think is old!"

"No, according to scientists, it is really fuckin' old."

See!

You left one out. The process is ...

Old < Really Fuckin' Old < HAMMEROGOD

[The Lazy Superhero]

Originally Posted by FatClemenza

You left one out. The process is ...

Old < Really Fuckin' Old < HAMMEROGOD

Now your just getting theoretical on us.

There aren't instruments sophisticated enough to measure the HAMMEROGOD phenomena.

[Now it's dark]

That would make BC Comics irrelivant.

Plus 1,000,000 Years BC starring Raquel Welch would seem inacurate.

Let's just leave well enough alone.

[Fritolaid]

I can see the Antiques Road Show:

"Oh, this piece is special! According to my calculations, this sucker is dated beyond HAMMEROGOD, and worth about three dollars in Mickey D french fry certificates."

[StrikeFalcon]

I had a prof a couple years back who tried to make the class use "B.C.E." in their history papers. I flat-out refused because of how preposterous it was.

Regardless of whether or not you're a Christian, Christ was a very important figure in history and there is no reason why using his life as a mile-marker in historical dates should be considered religiously-biased.

"BC" was invented by academics. "BCE" was invented by ignoramuses.

[ineedcoffee]

Originally Posted by StrikeFalcon

I had a prof a couple years back who tried to make the class use "B.C.E." in their history papers. I flat-out refused because of how preposterous it was.

Regardless of whether or not you're a Christian, Christ was a very important figure in history and there is no reason why using his life as a mile-marker in historical dates should be considered religiously-biased.

"BC" was invented by academics. "BCE" was invented by ignoramuses.

Not to mention, we're still using his life as a mile marker (the common era still begins with the birth of Christ), only we're pretending not to. Even this liberal agnostic thinks it's all a bit silly.

[Neo Convict]

If they are going to be this silly they really need to choose a different event to which they refference. Perhaps the industrial revolution or steam engine. We could have PIR/AIR or BSE/ASE. Keeping the dates the same seems to defeat their intended purpose. What else happend of note outside of Christs birth 2005 years ago?

[mighty joe moon]

Originally Posted by doggyworld83

Did you know that Christ wasn't born in 1 AD? He was actually born in 4 AD. The people creating the calenders of time got it wrong. I always thought it's funny how the whole history of the world is based on a mistake.

the history of the world is unaltered by any constant shift in the numerical date. so... no.

[Esoteric_Allusion]

Originally Posted by Neo Convict

If they are going to be this silly they really need to choose a different event to which they refference. Perhaps the industrial revolution or steam engine. We could have PIR/AIR or BSE/ASE. Keeping the dates the same seems to defeat their intended purpose. What else happend of note outside of Christs birth 2005 years ago?

Tons of things? You could base dating on a year viewed to be the date of the fall of the Roman Empire, the invention of the Gutenberg printing press, or some major event in Chinese history that I know nothing about . BC is just used out of tradition.

[Bigwig]

Originally Posted by doggyworld83

Did you know that Christ wasn't born in 1 AD? He was actually born in 4 AD. The people creating the calenders of time got it wrong. I always thought it's funny how the whole history of the world is based on a mistake.

Actually, I just read (not more than a week ago) that he was born in 6 BC.

I'll google. I'm curious now.

[Sir Jamesmith the Fly]

Originally Posted by Bigwig

Actually, I just read (not more than a week ago) that he was born in 6 BC.

I'll google. I'm curious now.

Heard the same thing, actually.

[Neo Convict]

Originally Posted by Esoteric_Allusion

Tons of things? You could base dating on a year viewed to be the date of the fall of the Roman Empire, the invention of the Gutenberg printing press, or some major event in Chinese history that I know nothing about . BC is just used out of tradition.

You missed my point but that is cool. I asked what else happened 2005 years ago that was of historical importance outside the birth of Christ. I certainly was not trying to imply nothing of signifigance has happened since.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by seele1313

Heard the same thing, actually.

Yeah I thought it was March or April in 6 BC. I seem to remember both a planetarium show and a Nova episode suggesting this.

[Grebdron]

Originally Posted by Neo Convict

You missed my point but that is cool. I asked what else happened 2005 years ago that was of historical importance outside the birth of Christ. I certainly was not trying to imply nothing of signifigance has happened since.

Prohibition.

[Antoine]

Originally Posted by Bigwig

Actually, I just read (not more than a week ago) that he was born in 6 BC.

I think it has to be either of those two years because those are the years that Herod colleted taxes, or something.

[Esoteric_Allusion]

Originally Posted by Neo Convict

You missed my point but that is cool. I asked what else happened 2005 years ago that was of historical importance outside the birth of Christ. I certainly was not trying to imply nothing of signifigance has happened since.

Yes, I did misunderstand what you said.

You're looking for another event the B.C./A.D. cut off can refer to.

For one, it's during the reign of Rome's first true emporer, Augustus Ceasar.

[Neo Convict]

Originally Posted by Esoteric_Allusion

Yes, I did misunderstand what you said.

You're looking for another event the B.C./A.D. cut off can refer to.

For one, it's during the reign of Rome's first true emporer, Augustus Ceasar.

So you could have AC/DC? (alive Ceasar/dead Ceasar)

[CuePee]

Originally Posted by StrikeFalcon

I had a prof a couple years back who tried to make the class use "B.C.E." in their history papers. I flat-out refused because of how preposterous it was.

Regardless of whether or not you're a Christian, Christ was a very important figure in history and there is no reason why using his life as a mile-marker in historical dates should be considered religiously-biased.

"BC" was invented by academics. "BCE" was invented by ignoramuses.

The argument I listened to on the radio referred to the "Christ" part as being that which was potentially offensive.

While many accept the historical significance of Jesus the man not all believe him to be the Christ which has a very specific connotation.

They were basically saying they would be happy with BJ but not BC.

That is Before Jesus for all you blasphemers.

[Nlkead]

My crazy ultra-left wing History teacher in 7th grade used BCE and CE. While that's not surprising, my ****in' theology book freshman year used BCE and CE, too.

[Stranger on a Train]

Originally Posted by CuePee

The argument I listened to on the radio referred to the "Christ" part as being that which was potentially offensive.

While many accept the historical significance of Jesus the man not all believe him to be the Christ which has a very specific connotation.

They were basically saying they would be happy with BJ but not BC.

That is Before Jesus for all you blasphemers.

Huh. That makes a little more sense, I suppose. But it's still a pretty trivial matter to get worked up about.

[Nlkead]

Originally Posted by Neo Convict

If they are going to be this silly they really need to choose a different event to which they refference. Perhaps the industrial revolution or steam engine. We could have PIR/AIR or BSE/ASE. Keeping the dates the same seems to defeat their intended purpose. What else happend of note outside of Christs birth 2005 years ago?

I'm sure a donkey was slaughtered, or something. I wouldn't mind living in the Post Donkey-Slaughtering Era myself, but AD is certainly preferable.

[Nlkead]

Originally Posted by CuePee

They were basically saying they would be happy with BJ

Huh huh huh huh huh.

I like that better, too.

[El_Chapulin_Colorado]

Originally Posted by CuePee

.

They were basically saying they would be happy with BJ

.

And how can anyone know when jesus was born?How can you know when a man who never existed was born?

[theVictorian]

Who makes it, names it.

[Neo Convict]

Originally Posted by El_Chapulin_Colorado

And how can anyone know when jesus was born?How can you know when a man who never existed was born?

Most scholars agree a man named Jesus lived in these times. His claims of divinity are the only real point of dispute.