All Comments (31)

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

Bangbros - website of the Bang Bros <a href="http://www.friendster.com/websearch.php?search=1

Our calendar was constructed around the authority and convenience of the late Roman empire, later the Catholic church. Use of CE and BCE simply acknowledges that not all history is Christian history. By the way, 5767 is the year now following the calendar that Jesus of Nazareth most likely used.
Do we really need to be sidetracked by this sort of chauvinism?

I wonder how Professor Marty feels about how well his point was taken.

Wow. That's a whole lot of venom over nothing much.

Yes, a calendar that's be in use for centuries, used to date the beginning of Western Civilization. And the reason why that was chosen as the date was because of a man, devine or not, known as Jesus Christ. That's History, deal with it. If you can't, go to Greece, visit the Parthenon and see how successfully you can convince people it was not dedicated to Athena. Does Athena exist? It doesn't matter. It's just history. But imagine an attempt by Godfrey's scholars to remove any mention of Athena when teaching about the Parthenon in order not to offend the atheists and non-pantheists among us. Pretty ridiculous.

Immaterial religious association? That's a part of History also. Remove it and you change the facts of History. And then anything is fair game. Holocaust denial, anyone?

E, my personal religious beliefs have no bearing here. That's the point I'm trying to make. Like it or not our calendar was constructed around the life of one man, Jesus Christ. If you remove him you remove history. It doesn't matter if you see him as the son of God or not. His existence should not be negated by removing historical references to his name.

Tone? Glad you noticed. It's one of disgust. This time of removal of all things Christian, even from our history books, is reminiscent of the Nazis burning books.

Can't bring yourself to use BC AD even though the Christ aspect means nothing to you? Then you are a bigot. Your reasons are personal, not historical.

FROM ONTARIO CONSULTANTS ON RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE:

Overview:
CE stands for "Common Era." It is a relatively new term that is experiencing increased usage and is expected to eventually replace AD. The latter is an abbreviation for "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English. The latter refers to the approximate birth year of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ). CE and AD have the same and value. 2004 CE = 2004 AD.

BCE stands for "Before the common era." It is expected to eventually replace BC, which means "Before Christ," or "Before the Messiah." BC and BCE are also identical in value. Most theologians and religious historians believe that the approximate birth date of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) was in the fall, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE, although we have seen estimates as late as 4 CE and as early as the second century BCE.

Of course, one can always interpret the letter "C" in CE and BCE as referring to "Christian" or "Christ's." The Abbreviations Dictionary does exactly this. 1

Groups in favor of CE/BCE:
The Ethic of Reciprocity (the Golden Rule) suggests that one should not intentionally cause unnecessary pain to other humans. We should treat others as we would wish to be treated. Since only one out of every three humans on earth is a Christian, some theologians and other authors felt that non-religious, neutral terms like CE and BCE would be less offensive to the non-Christian majority. Forcing a Hindu, for example, to use AD and BC might be seen by some as coercing them to acknowledge the supremacy of the Christian God and of Jesus Christ.

Consider an analogous situation: the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. The most recent version of this pledge includes the phrase: "Under God." Imagine what a Wiccan (who believes in a God and a Goddess), or many Buddhists and strong Atheists ( who do not believe in the existence of God) feel when having to recite those words. Consider how a Christian would feel if the pledge read "Under Buddha" or "Under Allah."

Although CE and BCE were originally used mainly within theological writings, the terms are gradually receiving greater usage in secular writing, the media, and in the culture generally.

A group and individual opposed to CE/BCE:
Many Christians, particularly from the conservative Protestant wing of that religion, are distressed at the new terms. Some feel that AD and BC have been in use for centuries and that this tradition should be respected. Others see the switch to CE and BCE as just one more example of secularism and non-Christian religions being given precedence over Christianity.

At its year 2000 convention at Orlando FL, the Southern Baptist Convention approved their Resolution 9: "On retaining the traditional method of calendar dating (B.C./A.D.)." With reference to the popularity of the CE/BCE nomenclature, it stated, in part:

"...This practice is the result of the secularization, anti-supernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society." 3
"The traditional method of dating is a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel in world history."

The resolution recommended that Southern Baptist "individuals, churches, entities, and institutions....retain the traditional method of dating and avoid this revisionism. 4

Ben Johnson of Hampden Academy in Maine suggested a number of reasons why he prefered AD and BC. Some are:

The term "common era" does not appear in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.
Better events to choose to represent a major change in human history would be: The invention of agriculture, circa 10000 BCE
The invasion of Europe by Persia in 491 BCE
The birth date of Alexander the Great who conquered most of the known world in 356 BCE.
Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BCE.
Columbus arrival in America in 1492 CE
The end of World War 1 in 1918
The end of World War 2 in 1945.
The date when Yuri Gagarin entered space in 1959 CE.

The labels AD and BC have lost their religious meaning; few even know what the abbreviations stand for.
All of the older history books use AD and BC.
The terms CE and BCE both contain the two letters "CE," making them more difficult to distinguish from each other.
There is currently a split between academics -- who generally use CE/BCE -- and the general public who currently use AD/BC. This split widens "...the rift between learning and the common man." 5

Steve,

What date would you like to use to begin the calendar? And how are you going to convince the world to adopt your system? And if you think scholars who have devoted their lives to studying history are ignorant, "ignorant" isn't good enough a word for you.

Steve, Using BCE and CE has nothing to do with "changing the facts of History,
nor is it "a deliberate exercise in bigotry."

It's about preserving the calendar that's been in use for centuries among people of all faiths and no faith while removing the immaterial religious association.

Tell me, Steve, are you Christian? You have that particular non-loving tone that I'm beginning to recognize among Christians on this forum.

But Mister Godfrey...why do we start our calendar at that date at all?
Surely the very reason itself must be very offensive to jews and atheists.
Sorry, one doesn't hear much from other faiths on the issue. Most people realize it is only a date considered to be the beginning of Western Civilization. It's history, that's all. And guess what (horror of horrors)!!!!? Sometimes history involves talk of a God!

Using BCE CE is an appalling attempt at changing the facts of History and a deliberate exercise in bigotry. In short, it's used by the ignorant.

Sir:

I've been reading you since my freshman year at Valparaiso University in the middle 60s. You have enjoyed the voice of reason, moderation, and intellectual honesty and shared your wisdom with us for all these years.

I've begun to feel that voices like yours should be more at the front of debate. It won't make a lot of difference to those hellbent on skewing the Christian agenda but it will provide a rebuttal anchor for those of us who see the church and its humanity that you express as the source of reason.

Robert James:

re: the appearance of Jesus

Morton Smith, in _Jesus the Magician_, speculated that Jesus was on the small side, dark, short-haired, rather unattractive, and covered with tattooed or scarified magic spells He had learned in Egypt.

It's a fun way to think about it. Personally, I'm still not convinced He ever existed.

Anon:

CE and BCE are certainly replacing AD and BC in academic literature. Even Christian writers on the history of Christianity are using it.

You have to consider that the western dating system is used by many, many people who aren't in your "culture." Why should Jews have to say "year of our Lord," when they bloody well don't acknowledge Him as lord? Why should a Christian say "year of our Lord" when the other person he's talking to is Hindu? And as an atheist, I'm certainly more comfortable with the new way, and am also comfortable with you being offended. You Christians need to find out what it feels like.

Robert James --You write: "It makes me wonder if Jesus' humility is so foreign to what we practice that it bears no relationship to Jesus."

That is exactly it.

Christians have become americanized, rather than US America, christianized. That is what I see as an outsider.

Robert Jameqs --You write: "It makes me wonder if Jesus' humility is so foreign to what we practice that it bears no relationship to Jesus."

That is exactly it.

Christians have become americanized, rather than US America, christianized. That is what I see as an outsider.

robert james -
the churches of old were the public works projects of the time, as were the pyramides.
they employed artists, who had families, who ate break made by the bakers, and who wore shoes made by the shoe maker, etc.
and the great art in those churches - those artists spent the money in the community.
the churches ran the poor houses, and the hospitals. they did what the lords of the time did not do.
yes there were some who were rich for the sake of being rich, but even they spent the money on things, things that had to be produced and purchased.
it was the church and the rich that had the great schools of art and higher learning.
so get over it.

I accept the tenor of your article. It is amazing that Christianity has rejected much of what Jesus preached and the reasons he gave for his positions of caring for the poor and the injustices that they suffered. Jesus was probably a rough ragged man with a dark swarthy skin. If so, he probably looked like a poor Arab or poor Jewish working man. The west portrays him in pure white robes with long flowing combed hair and Features that are European. I guess the truth has not suited us so we have created a fiction in our own image.

For centuries the Churches have been wealthy. They preserve their assets rather than using them for the poor. They, and their followers have killed in the name of Jesus and God. I suppose they did not like the biblical message contained in the new testament so they 'improved' it so that it reflected the views that they wanted to proliferate. It makes me wonder if Jesus' humility is so foreign to what we practice that it bears no relationship to Jesus.

Seeing as 1AD was never more than an estimate anyway, isn't it better to acknowledge that than risk getting Jesus' age wrong?

And to address the actual question, Jesus was also violent to herds of swine and fig trees.

V.O.T.E For OUR future ((((((((( PEACE-LOVE-ROCK-n-Roll Mitt-ROMNEY: For Prez! YES! )))))))))

thank you all for the information on bce stuff.
i dont think its becoming common as i dont see it around.
and it appears to be form over substance.
they are still measuring time in bc and ad but they want to pretend its a different name.
i think its offensive to do the bce and ce stuff. how would another culture like it if i went into their calendar and used the numbers but changed the name.

....and then there BH and AH - before Hejira and After Hejira for the Muslim calender. My diary have both Gregorian and Muslim calenders/dates to keep up with the Muslim and Western New Years, Chrismas Day, Prophet Muhammad birthday, Diwali, Wesak Day, Chinese New Year and such and such. Only in Malaysia. Life was simpler on diaries and dates in Indonesia.

How about BD and AD (Before Dawkins and After Dawkins) to add on to be PC on date and time for atheists?

LT,

Thank you, dear. I know.

Russell,

Oh snap.

Andrea,

"Anno Domini" means "Year of our Lord," not "after death." So the first calendar year after Jesus was born would be 1 A.D., following 1 B.C. (there is no "0" year). That means every year is covered, except that scholars seems to believe that the birth of Jesus is misdated by several years.

I use, for example, -79 or +32. Years before and after the alleged event.

Andrea:

Those years would be called the BSF years.

BSF= Before the S*** hit the Fan

Anon,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AD is not in relation to the death of Jesus. If it were, what are the 33 years in which he's supposed to have lived called?

Anonymous,

Likewise CE = Common Era = Anno Domini = A.D.

Both B.C.E. and C.E. are becoming the standard and are replacing B.C. and A.D.

No doubt a kind of P.C. is at work here.

Anonymous,

B.C.E. = "Before the Common Era", which is the same as "Before Christ" or "B.C." It's used by those (especially Jewish people and academics) who don't want to mention Christ in dating.

what the hell is bce? is that some kind of new way of telling time? or is this some pc crap stilluing the birth and death of jesus but pretending that it is something else?