The war on Christmas

[Divair]

I'm content with the fact that on Dec 31st the world rings in the new year - not based on the Jewish, Islamic, Japanese Era, Mayan or Atheist etc calendars - but rather the one based on the [estimated] life and death of Jesus Christ - our Lord and Savior.

Indeed, have a very happy new AD year.

As, even by best estimates, the year is way off at this point... and the convention remains more out of its wide spread use than what it's original intended relevance was... I'm more inclined to side with those using CE and BCE nomenclatures for the year.

Who seriously thinks about Christianity when discussing the date anyway? The globe uses the BCE/CE format because it is convenient and already widespread, not because it's Christian.

[Tekania]

As, even by best estimates, the year is way off at this point... and the convention remains more out of its wide spread use than what it's original intended relevance was... I'm more inclined to side with those using CE and BCE nomenclatures for the year.

Who seriously thinks about Christianity when discussing the date anyway? The globe uses the BCE/CE format because it is convenient and already widespread, not because it's Christian.

Pat Robertson and Bill O'Reily probably, they can be found in the toilet wacking off while screaming AD!!! AD!!!! AD!!!.

Man, that just generated very unpleasant images in my head.

[Divair]

Who seriously thinks about Christianity when discussing the date anyway? The globe uses the BCE/CE format because it is convenient and already widespread, not because it's Christian.

Pat Robertson and Bill O'Reily probably, they can be found in the toilet wacking off while screaming AD!!! AD!!!! AD!!!.

Brilliant.

[Salandriagado]

I assume you have renounced this system for numbering years, since while AD means 'anno domini' and BC 'before Christ', Jesus was not born in 1 AD. Surely if you want things properly based off Jesus you restart your years based on the best guess on his actual birthday and number the years on the best guess of the year he was born?

I'm content with the fact that on Dec 31st the world rings in the new year - not based on the Jewish, Islamic, Japanese Era, Mayan or Atheist etc calendars - but rather the one based on the [estimated] life and death of Jesus Christ - our Lord and Savior.

Indeed, have a very happy new AD year.

Great. So the "Christian" (and I use that word unbelievably loosely) calendar has given us a decent party once a year that is observed in some places (but by no means all). Compare and contrast one of the few non-religious calendars that is widespread: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time[/url], which makes the internet work.

[Srboslavija]

As, even by best estimates, the year is way off at this point... and the convention remains more out of its wide spread use than what it's original intended relevance was... I'm more inclined to side with those using CE and BCE nomenclatures for the year.

Who seriously thinks about Christianity when discussing the date anyway? The globe uses the BCE/CE format because it is convenient and already widespread, not because it's Christian.

Bit ironic if you believe the atheist version of events in that humans have been around for millions of years. And here we are, as a global collective, celebrating the year two thousand and thirteen. The basis of our modern history being the birth of Jesus.

Try and put an X on that, punk.

[Divair]

Bit ironic if you believe the atheist version of events in that humans have been around for millions of years.

There's no "atheist" version of events, and we haven't been around for millions of years. We've been around for about 250,000 years.

And here we are, as a global collective, celebrating the year two thousand and thirteen.

So obviously the world is 2013 years old

The basis of our modern history being the birth of Jesus.

Jesus was actually born in between 2 and 7 BCE. But anyway, no, the basis of our calendar is the only part of "modern history" that revolves around the approximate birth of Jesus. The calendar has been secularized via the use of BCE/CE.

Try and put an X on that, punk.

Close enough.

[Tekania]

Who seriously thinks about Christianity when discussing the date anyway? The globe uses the BCE/CE format because it is convenient and already widespread, not because it's Christian.

Bit ironic if you believe the atheist version of events in that humans have been around for millions of years. And here we are, as a global collective, celebrating the year two thousand and thirteen. The basis of our modern history being the birth of Jesus.

Try and put an X on that, punk.

They don't have to put an X on anything.... the X is part of a widely used Christian shorting of Christ (XP) which has been around for more than 1,000 years. It comes from "X" as in the Greek letter 'chi'. It's just part of common vernacular now. An early example can be found in labarum for example as used by Constantine I. And on that note:



Of course, in addition to your error on that point, you're also apperently ignorant that plenty of us Christians also think that humans have been on Earth for millions of years. Not all of us are young-earthers, sorry to burst your bubble there.

[Dyakovo]

Who seriously thinks about Christianity when discussing the date anyway? The globe uses the BCE/CE format because it is convenient and already widespread, not because it's Christian.

Bit ironic if you believe the atheist version of events in that humans have been around for millions of years. And here we are, as a global collective, celebrating the year two thousand and thirteen. The basis of our modern history being the birth of Jesus.

Try and put an X on that, punk.

Assuming he actually existed, he wasn't born in 1 CE. Also, it has already been explained to you the "X" in "Xmas" is not an attempt to cross out "Christ".

[Srboslavija]

"Assuming he actually existed"

Zoinks! Even the most brazen of militant atheists don't deny His existence. Consider this conversation over.

[Esternial]

"Assuming he actually existed"

Zoinks! Even the most brazen of militant atheists don't deny His existence. Consider this conversation over.

Wow, probably the most horrible conclusion I've seen on NSG yet.

Have one of my Emmy's

[Disserbia]

It's BS. I'm Christian and I think it's BS. Separation of church and state means exactly what it sounds like, and so does freedom of religion. How can we claim either if we don't use neutral vocabulary.

[Immoren]

"Assuming he actually existed"

Zoinks! Even the most brazen of militant atheists don't deny His existence. Consider this conversation over.

Jesus as as common name then as "Jones" or "Smith" is today...

[Dyakovo]

"Assuming he actually existed"

Zoinks! Even the most brazen of militant atheists don't deny His existence. Consider this conversation over.

Yes, assuming he actually existed. It is a rather large assumption since the only evidence for his existence is the book written by his fan club, and that is full of lies.

[Divair]

"Assuming he actually existed"

Zoinks! Even the most brazen of militant atheists don't deny His existence. Consider this conversation over.

Aww, I'm not going to get a reply.

[The Realm of God]

Bit ironic if you believe the atheist version of events in that humans have been around for millions of years. And here we are, as a global collective, celebrating the year two thousand and thirteen. The basis of our modern history being the birth of Jesus.

Try and put an X on that, punk.

They don't have to put an X on anything.... the X is part of a widely used Christian shorting of Christ (XP) which has been around for more than 1,000 years. It comes from "X" as in the Greek letter 'chi'. It's just part of common vernacular now. An early example can be found in labarum for example as used by Constantine I. And on that note:



Of course, in addition to your error on that point, you're also apperently ignorant that plenty of us Christians also think that humans have been on Earth for millions of years. Not all of us are young-earthers, sorry to burst your bubble there.

Look at my flag for an example of a Chi-Rho one of the oldest Christian symbols for am example of what this guys saying.

[Srboslavija]

There's no "atheist" version of events, and we haven't been around for millions of years. We've been around for about 250,000 years.

Closer to 6,000, but hey, who's counting.

So obviously the world is 2013 years old

Certainly not, the world is many thousands of years old but it only became relevant for us 2,013 years ago. The reasons being obvious enough.

Jesus was actually born in between 2 and 7 BCE. But anyway, no, the basis of our calendar is the only part of "modern history" that revolves around the approximate birth of Jesus. The calendar has been secularized via the use of BCE/CE.

Keep trying. Baby Jesus wants to wish you a happy new year, because you're [we're] certainly not following any of these;

[To the dude advocating Unix Time, happy new 1356998400 !]

[Divair]

Closer to 6,000, but hey, who's counting.

If you're completely ignorant concerning geology and evolution, maybe.

Certainly not, the world is many thousands of years old

Close. It's actually 4.54 billion years old.

but it only became relevant for us 2,013 years ago. The reasons being obvious enough.

If by "us" you mean "fundamentalist Christians", you may have a point.

The reasons being obvious enough.

No, they aren't. Jesus was before in BCE, died in CE. Why did the world become "relevant" to fundamentalist Christians exactly 2013 years ago?

Keep trying. Baby Jesus wants to wish you a happy new year, because you're [we're] certainly not following any of these;

(Image)

[To the dude advocating Unix Time, happy new 1356998400 !]

So because Christianity expanded through violence, and it is now convenient for us to use a calendar based on the Christian one, Christianity is somehow right?

[Vetalia]

Jesus was actually born in between 2 and 7 BCE. But anyway, no, the basis of our calendar is the only part of "modern history" that revolves around the approximate birth of Jesus. The calendar has been secularized via the use of BCE/CE.

Out of curiosity, what delineates the Common Era vs. the before period?

[Khadgar]

Who seriously thinks about Christianity when discussing the date anyway? The globe uses the BCE/CE format because it is convenient and already widespread, not because it's Christian.

Bit ironic if you believe the atheist version of events in that humans have been around for millions of years. And here we are, as a global collective, celebrating the year two thousand and thirteen. The basis of our modern history being the birth of Jesus.

Try and put an X on that, punk.

You're a young Earth creationist? Holy shit, I didn't know people actually bought into that idiocy.

[Divair]

Jesus was actually born in between 2 and 7 BCE. But anyway, no, the basis of our calendar is the only part of "modern history" that revolves around the approximate birth of Jesus. The calendar has been secularized via the use of BCE/CE.

Out of curiosity, what delineates the Common Era vs. the before period?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
" BCE is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era"


Roughly speaking, it's the before and after era of Christianity. It's mostly a convenience thing, it's impossible to introduce a new calendar now.

[Dyakovo]

There's no "atheist" version of events, and we haven't been around for millions of years. We've been around for about 250,000 years.

Closer to 6,000, but hey, who's counting.¹

So obviously the world is 2013 years old

Certainly not, the world is many thousands of years old but it only became relevant for us 2,013 years ago. The reasons being obvious enough. ²

Jesus was actually born in between 2 and 7 BCE. But anyway, no, the basis of our calendar is the only part of "modern history" that revolves around the approximate birth of Jesus. The calendar has been secularized via the use of BCE/CE.

Keep trying. Baby Jesus wants to wish you a happy new year, because you're [we're] certainly not following any of these; ³ ]

1: Anthropologists... Modern humans (depending on whether you're talking about behavioral or anatomical modernity) have been around for 50,000-200,000 years.
2: The world is approximately 4.5 billion years old and calendars have been relevant for a lot longer than 2000 years...
3: Once again, assuming he actually existed, Yeshua wasn't born in 1CE.

[Divair]

Bit ironic if you believe the atheist version of events in that humans have been around for millions of years. And here we are, as a global collective, celebrating the year two thousand and thirteen. The basis of our modern history being the birth of Jesus.

Try and put an X on that, punk.

You're a young Earth creationist? Holy shit, I didn't know people actually bought into that idiocy.

Really? There are quite a few of them, even on this forum.

[Menassa]

Out of curiosity, what delineates the Common Era vs. the before period?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
" BCE is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era"


Roughly speaking, it's the before and after era of Christianity. It's mostly a convenience thing, it's impossible to introduce a new calendar now.

I've been using the Hebrew Solar/Lunar calendar for god knows how long.

[Divair]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
" BCE is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era"


Roughly speaking, it's the before and after era of Christianity. It's mostly a convenience thing, it's impossible to introduce a new calendar now.

I've been using the Hebrew Solar/Lunar calendar for god knows how long.

Which is fine if the other person knows the Hebrew solar/lunar calendar. Most people, however do not. The BCE/CE calendar is the most widely known.

[Srboslavija]

So because Christianity expanded through violence, and it is now convenient for us to use a calendar based on the Christian one, Christianity is somehow right?

Not only is Christianity right, it is one of the major pillars of successful, modern, Western society we have today. Not only did it civilise us, it helped propel us into an age of enlightenment previously never experienced in the "250,000" years humans have apparently been around.

Now because we have it much easier than our ancestors ever did - we should abandon/deny/ridicule our Christian heritage? No thanks.