Time for a change?

[Southwind17]

I was reading a book the other night which used the abbreviation B.C. for dating a certain philosopher's life. It made me wonder, for those people who wish not to believe in Christ, or who might at least wish not to defer to the Bible on any matters whatsoever, is there an alternative to using the abbreviations B.C. and A.D. to date events? Clearly, A.D. could simply be dispensed with, but what about B.C.?

This thought also prompted me to consult the dictionary to check for a biblical or religious connotation for A.D. (I see no need to apologize for not understanding Latin!). Interestingly, it gives the meaning as: "in the year of the Lord, now used in numbering the years since Christ was thought to have been born" (emphasis added). That raises a question and a thought in my mind:

1. Is there disagreement amongst believers as to when Christ was born?
2. Doesn't it seem ludicrous that we seem to be governed by a dating system that relies on a biblical/religious event for calibration, but more importantly (possibly), that the calibration mechanism seems flawed, or at least uncertain!

[Taffer]

I was reading a book the other night which used the abbreviation B.C. for dating a certain philosopher's life. It made me wonder, for those people who wish not to believe in Christ, or who might at least wish not to defer to the Bible on any matters whatsoever, is there an alternative to using the abbreviations B.C. and A.D. to date events? Clearly, A.D. could simply be dispensed with, but what about B.C.?

This thought also prompted me to consult the dictionary to check for a biblical or religious connotation for A.D. (I see no need to apologize for not understanding Latin!). Interestingly, it gives the meaning as: "in the year of the Lord, now used in numbering the years since Christ was thought to have been born" (emphasis added). That raises a question and a thought in my mind:

1. Is there disagreement amongst believers as to when Christ was born?
2. Doesn't it seem ludicrous that we seem to be governed by a dating system that relies on a biblical/religious event for calibration, but more importantly (possibly), that the calibration mechanism seems flawed, or at least uncertain!

B.P? Before Present?

[Southwind17]

B.P? Before Present?

That only works for this year!

[Southwind17]

I suppose it's only a matter of time before somebody suggets B.E.!!!

[NobbyNobbs]

Although the Jewish calendar has it's own, lunar system (it's year 574something now), when using the more well-known calendar, Jews refer to "B.C.E." (Before Common Era) and "C.E." (Common Era).

Would this do the trick for you?

[Alkatran]

I would prefer we say -10 instead of "10 BC".

But frankly, I don't think the meaning of "BC" and "AD" matter. When most people use them they aren't affirming the truth of christianity.

It's similar to saying "Oh my god!" when surprised: it's just a statement of surprise, it doesn't necessarily mean you believe in god.

[SomeGuy]

I think C.E. and B.C.E. was in use amongst atheists for a while.

If memory serves it mean Common Era.

[Skibum]

BCE/CE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

[Southwind17]

Although the Jewish calendar has it's own, lunar system (it's year 574something now), when using the more well-known calendar, Jews refer to "B.C.E." (Before Common Era) and "C.E." (Common Era).

Would this do the trick for you?

I would prefer we say -10 instead of "10 BC".

But frankly, I don't think the meaning of "BC" and "AD" matter. When most people use them they aren't affirming the truth of christianity.

It's similar to saying "Oh my god!" when surprised: it's just a statement of surprise, it doesn't necessarily mean you believe in god.

I think C.E. and B.C.E. was in use amongst atheists for a while.

If memory serves it mean Common Era.

BCE/CE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

The 'problem' with all these is that they still implicitly acknowledge a supposed biblical event. Is that why 'atheists' eventually dropped 'common era'?

[SomeGuy]

The 'problem' with all these is that they still implicitly acknowledge a supposed biblical event. Is that why 'atheists' eventually dropped 'common era'?

I think that people just realized that their are bigger issues to worry about.

That and the fact that even if we would want to it has become extremely unpractical to change the actual yearnumber after having used the calendar for nearly 20 centuries (this is assuming the fact, which I heard, we started using it around 120 CE is correct)

[Taffer]

That only works for this year!

True. I don't think there is any system, given that our year numbering system is based upon it.

[Southwind17]

I think that people just realized that their are bigger issues to worry about.

That and the fact that even if we would want to it has become extremely unpractical to change the actual yearnumber after having used the calendar for nearly 20 centuries (this is assuming the fact, which I heard, we started using it around 120 CE is correct)

So changing it to B.E. (Before Elvis) is out of the question then?

[Beerina]

So changing it to B.E. (Before Elvis) is out of the question then?

Of course it's out of the question!




































He's not dead yet.

[Meri]

Of course it's out of the question!




He's not dead yet.

But that wouldn't matter, because we'd count from his birth.

Would this mean we'd have to move Christmas to Elvis's birthday?

[Southwind17]

But that wouldn't matter, because we'd count from his birth.

Would this mean we'd have to move Christmas to Elvis's birthday?

I wonder what the nativity play might look/sound like?!

[cnorman18]

I'm Jewish, and I use BCE and
CE. Yeah, the NUMBER still refers back to the estimated date of Jesus's birth, but I don't worry about it much. It seems to be 2007 all over the world, even among people who've never heard of Jesus.

We still use Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and nobody seems to worry that we're acknowledging the worship of Woden, Thor or Freya.

[Meri]

I'm Jewish, and I use BCE and
CE. Yeah, the NUMBER still refers back to the estimated date of Jesus's birth, but I don't worry about it much. It seems to be 2007 all over the world, even among people who've never heard of Jesus.

We still use Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and nobody seems to worry that we're acknowledging the worship of Woden, Thor or Freya.

Not to mention July and August promoting the worship of Julius and Augustus Caesar, or January= Janus. Our time keeping is a mess of old mythologies.

All the same, I still say we consider changing the nativity play to Elvis's birth.

[cnorman18]

All the same, I still say we consider changing the nativity play to Elvis's birth.

That might be unpleasant. Elvis had a stillborn twin named Aaron.

I met Elvis when I was about ten, and didn't realize who he was till later. Ten years later, it happened again with Eric Clapton. I'm just dense that way...

[Senex]

I think going to an Advent calendar may make no sense, but it is kind of funny...

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2580288.html