A New Dating System

[USS Monitor]

Using CE dates does not call Jesus "the Lord." AD does.

Why does it bother you enough to argue about it? If it's such a non-issue, then it shouldn't matter to you either way.

Even though it's silly, I know the reasoning behind it. It's an attempt to remove references to Christianity for no legitimate reason. It's a part of an overall hostility to Christianity that the left has.

But by getting mad about it, you're admitting that it is a meaningful change -- which contradicts your original argument of "How would CE/BCE change this anyway?" By fussing about it, you're admitting that this is a big enough issue to be worth fussing about.

[Sanctissima]

Why do we need to rename it in order to acknowledge the already-acknowledged fact that not everyone is Christian? Is there anyone who is unaware that non-Christians exist because we use a dating system based upon Christ's birth? How would CE/BCE change this anyway? It is still based upon the birth of Christ, and means alternatively "Christian Era" or "Common Era," which itself implies that the birth of Christ somehow ushered forth a new, common era shared by all mankind - still rather Christian-centric, no?

Using CE dates does not call Jesus "the Lord." AD does.

Why does it bother you enough to argue about it? If it's such a non-issue, then it shouldn't matter to you either way.

Honestly, if the people who introduced the whole CE thing wanted to create a non-Christian dating system, they shouldn't have used Christ's date of birth as the CE/BCE divide. It's a shitty half-assed system, and I don't see why anyone should take it seriously.

[Jamzmania]

Even though it's silly, I know the reasoning behind it. It's an attempt to remove references to Christianity for no legitimate reason. It's a part of an overall hostility to Christianity that the left has.

But by getting mad about it, you're admitting that it is a meaningful change -- which contradicts your original argument of "How would CE/BCE change this anyway?" By fussing about it, you're admitting that this is a big enough issue to be worth fussing about.

I fuss about all kinds of little shitty things.

[Ifreann]

Using CE dates does not call Jesus "the Lord." AD does.

Why does it bother you enough to argue about it? If it's such a non-issue, then it shouldn't matter to you either way.

Honestly, if the people who introduced the whole CE thing wanted to create a non-Christian dating system, they shouldn't have used Christ's date of birth as the CE/BCE divide. It's a shitty half-assed system, and I don't see why anyone should take it seriously.

From skimming the relevant Wikipedia page, the people who started the CE/BCE thing were Jewish academics who didn't want to refer to Jesus as Christ or their Lord. They weren't trying to create a non-Christian dating system, just using the Gregorian calender less blasphemously.

Well, unless you want to count the Christians from the 15th Century who called this the vulgaris aerae, as distinct from using regnal dating systems.

[USS Monitor]

Using CE dates does not call Jesus "the Lord." AD does.

Why does it bother you enough to argue about it? If it's such a non-issue, then it shouldn't matter to you either way.

Honestly, if the people who introduced the whole CE thing wanted to create a non-Christian dating system, they shouldn't have used Christ's date of birth as the CE/BCE divide. It's a shitty half-assed system, and I don't see why anyone should take it seriously.

It's a concession to the fact that people are used to using those dates, and a new system with different numbering would be harder for people to adjust to. It's an attempt to reduce the Christian bias without asking people to put an unreasonable amount of effort into learning a new system.

Sometimes you have to make some concessions to what's practical, and what you can do without disrupting people's lives too much. It's sort of like having a welfare system is reasonable; seizing all property and redistributing it equally in a communist revolution is not. Even though the welfare system doesn't remove all traces of inequality or poverty.

[Sanctissima]

Honestly, if the people who introduced the whole CE thing wanted to create a non-Christian dating system, they shouldn't have used Christ's date of birth as the CE/BCE divide. It's a shitty half-assed system, and I don't see why anyone should take it seriously.

From skimming the relevant Wikipedia page, the people who started the CE/BCE thing were Jewish academics who didn't want to refer to Jesus as Christ or their Lord. They weren't trying to create a non-Christian dating system, just using the Gregorian calender less blasphemously.

Well, unless you want to count the Christians from the 15th Century who called this the vulgaris aerae, as distinct from using regnal dating systems.

It's still half-assed if they expected this to catch on. Which from what I can gather, is what they wanted to see happen, at least in academic circles.

Honestly, if the people who introduced the whole CE thing wanted to create a non-Christian dating system, they shouldn't have used Christ's date of birth as the CE/BCE divide. It's a shitty half-assed system, and I don't see why anyone should take it seriously.

It's a concession to the fact that people are used to using those dates, and a new system with different numbering would be harder for people to adjust to. It's an attempt to reduce the Christian bias without asking people to put an unreasonable amount of effort into learning a new system.

Sometimes you have to make some concessions to what's practical, and what you can do without disrupting people's lives too much. It's sort of like having a welfare system is reasonable; seizing all property and redistributing it equally in a communist revolution is not. Even though the welfare system doesn't remove all traces of inequality or poverty.

That's not a concession, it's laziness.

[USS Monitor]

From skimming the relevant Wikipedia page, the people who started the CE/BCE thing were Jewish academics who didn't want to refer to Jesus as Christ or their Lord. They weren't trying to create a non-Christian dating system, just using the Gregorian calender less blasphemously.

Well, unless you want to count the Christians from the 15th Century who called this the vulgaris aerae, as distinct from using regnal dating systems.

It's still half-assed if they expected this to catch on. Which from what I can gather, is what they wanted to see happen, at least in academic circles.

It already has caught on in academia. Arch uses it (despite being a committed Christian), my professors at college used it, had a high school history class that used it...

[Reploid Productions]

It's still half-assed if they expected this to catch on. Which from what I can gather, is what they wanted to see happen, at least in academic circles.

It already has caught on in academia. Arch uses it, my professors at college used it, had a high school history class that used it...

Hell, when I was in high school (longer ago now than I care to admit,) at a Catholic high school, we were using CE/BCE.

[Jumalariik]

What benefit would this achieve? Most people who use BC/AD are Christian. The Western World is the only place that has not just freely adopted the system but instead always used it. Many people in Asia use BC/AD. Nobody forced them. They chose it. Why would we change it if they don't?

[Thermodolia]

Using CE dates does not call Jesus "the Lord." AD does.

Why does it bother you enough to argue about it? If it's such a non-issue, then it shouldn't matter to you either way.

Honestly, if the people who introduced the whole CE thing wanted to create a non-Christian dating system, they shouldn't have used Christ's date of birth as the CE/BCE divide. It's a shitty half-assed system, and I don't see why anyone should take it seriously.

The UN, many international agencies and organizations, the UK, most of the EU, and all of academia and science use it.

[Ava Ire]

I don't see the point in changing the current system. The BC/AD system works fine (or BCE/CE if you prefer), so it seems unnecessary and doesn't really improve anything by changing it.

[Rannoria]

I prefer to use BC/AD (bekus i sik hipstr yo) but I don't mind BCE/CE either.

Overhauling the calendar would take a lot of time and investment, time and investment that could be used for something else.

[Salandriagado]

Or ...

That would require us to know exactly when the universe was formed. Plus, how do we define Day 1? Do we call it January 1, Year 1? Or do we set it so that it corresponds to the exact day that the universe was created?

I mean, if you're making big changes like that, there's no real reason to keep the start of the year at "a bit after the winter solstice". It's only there in the first place because it's the supposed anniversary of the founding of Rome.

Honestly, I've never heard anyone except the most over-sensitive and PC of people get upset about A.D/B.C.

I think it's not as offensive as people seem to think it is. Like "Merry Christmas". Just because it's associated with religion doesn't mean it's necessarily an awful and offensive thing.

It's not offensive, just inaccurate. It seems most likely that a historical Jesus would be born somewhere around 4 BCE.

[Forsher]

That's all very well and good but it's also moronic.

100 is common. 1000 is common, 2000 is common...

So, just moronic, actually. Especially given that "common" seems more evocative of "shared" than frequent when we stick "era" after it... in which case we now displace those various other calendars used by other societies. To use language that makes conceiving of such diversity more difficult is, well, I'm lazy so I'll call it a thought crime.

I know of exactly nobody that uses an era such that this year is 100, 1000, or 2000. To be specific, an era is a choice of a point in time to define as your "zero point" to count from (in our case, midnight beginning the 1st of January 2016 years ago). Lots of people use that particular era, which makes it common. Nobody uses these other ones that you choose, which makes them uncommon.

I think I can see how you were confused but given I just disputed the sense of common in Common Era as meaning "frequent" that really should have been a clue I was criticising characterising 100, 1000 and 2000 as both representing moments where there was some shared nature to human existence (there was not, was not and maybe) and suggesting that there is some shared era between them (again, no).

I also don't know anyone who starts a calendar at any of those years... nor do I know anyone other than you who suggests we use the "frequent era".

I prefer CE/BCE. AD/BC is fine too, though.

How?

But TBH, I think switching to CE/BCE is a sufficient acknowledgement that not everyone is Christian. It's simpler than expecting everyone to change their frame of reference and get used to new dates -- especially since so many books have already been published using BC/AD or CE/BCE, and I think it's worthwhile for future generations to be able to read those without being confused by the dates.

By incorporating them into some non-existent shared past and by removing the indicators that our knowing it is 2017 has everything to do with coming from one particular tradition... AD does not try to universalise (through time and space) the particular, provided you understand it as an historical artefact. The long history of CE is, in fact, trivial because it has nothing to do with why CE is found now... a conscious choice was made that was on par with deciding to use AD, by the first people to do that.

Honestly, I've never heard anyone except the most over-sensitive and PC of people get upset about A.D/B.C.

I think it's not as offensive as people seem to think it is. Like "Merry Christmas". Just because it's associated with religion doesn't mean it's necessarily an awful and offensive thing.

All I ask is that some shouldn't get into a tizzy when people use BCE/CE and "Happy Holidays" instead of BC/AD and "Merry Christmas"

No, there are substantial problems with using BCE/CE.

It's still half-assed if they expected this to catch on. Which from what I can gather, is what they wanted to see happen, at least in academic circles.

It already has caught on in academia. Arch uses it (despite being a committed Christian), my professors at college used it, had a high school history class that used it...

No, he doesn't. At least not as a professional. While I disagree that there is no consequence to choosing to use B/CE and its inherent assumptions, I also think that people who switched to CE consciously are better placed to recognise the problems.

Honestly, if the people who introduced the whole CE thing wanted to create a non-Christian dating system, they shouldn't have used Christ's date of birth as the CE/BCE divide. It's a shitty half-assed system, and I don't see why anyone should take it seriously.

The UN, many international agencies and organizations, the UK, most of the EU, and all of academia and science use it.

You have not been paying much attention.

Which sort of demonstrates my points in miniature... this false belief that it is more universal than it is (although, undoubtedly, it is frequently used).

[Thermodolia]

I know of exactly nobody that uses an era such that this year is 100, 1000, or 2000. To be specific, an era is a choice of a point in time to define as your "zero point" to count from (in our case, midnight beginning the 1st of January 2016 years ago). Lots of people use that particular era, which makes it common. Nobody uses these other ones that you choose, which makes them uncommon.

I think I can see how you were confused but given I just disputed the sense of common in Common Era as meaning "frequent" that really should have been a clue I was criticising characterising 100, 1000 and 2000 as both representing moments where there was some shared nature to human existence (there was not, was not and maybe) and suggesting that there is some shared era between them (again, no).

I also don't know anyone who starts a calendar at any of those years... nor do I know anyone other than you who suggests we use the "frequent era".

I prefer CE/BCE. AD/BC is fine too, though.

How?

But TBH, I think switching to CE/BCE is a sufficient acknowledgement that not everyone is Christian. It's simpler than expecting everyone to change their frame of reference and get used to new dates -- especially since so many books have already been published using BC/AD or CE/BCE, and I think it's worthwhile for future generations to be able to read those without being confused by the dates.

By incorporating them into some non-existent shared past and by removing the indicators that our knowing it is 2017 has everything to do with coming from one particular tradition... AD does not try to universalise (through time and space) the particular, provided you understand it as an historical artefact. The long history of CE is, in fact, trivial because it has nothing to do with why CE is found now... a conscious choice was made that was on par with deciding to use AD, by the first people to do that.

All I ask is that some shouldn't get into a tizzy when people use BCE/CE and "Happy Holidays" instead of BC/AD and "Merry Christmas"

No, there are substantial problems with using BCE/CE.

It already has caught on in academia. Arch uses it (despite being a committed Christian), my professors at college used it, had a high school history class that used it...

No, he doesn't. At least not as a professional. While I disagree that there is no consequence to choosing to use B/CE and its inherent assumptions, I also think that people who switched to CE consciously are better placed to recognise the problems.

The UN, many international agencies and organizations, the UK, most of the EU, and all of academia and science use it.

You have not been paying much attention.

Which sort of demonstrates my points in miniature... this false belief that it is more universal than it is (although, undoubtedly, it is frequently used).

Frankly my dear I don't give a damn.
Also the only problems with BCE/CE are your opinion on it.

It's really funny how much you are getting into a knot over this. Even though CE has been in use since the 15th century

[Forsher]

Frankly my dear I don't give a damn.
Also the only problems with BCE/CE are your opinion on it.

It's really funny how much you are getting into a knot over this. Even though CE has been in use since the 15th century

Try reading my post...

The long history of CE is, in fact, trivial because it has nothing to do with why CE is found now... a conscious choice was made that was on par with deciding to use AD, by the first people to do that.

You have not substantiated why my problems with B/CE are non-existent and it is laughable that your closest attempt is to parrot back something I told you.

[Salus Maior]

Honestly, I've never heard anyone except the most over-sensitive and PC of people get upset about A.D/B.C.

I think it's not as offensive as people seem to think it is. Like "Merry Christmas". Just because it's associated with religion doesn't mean it's necessarily an awful and offensive thing.

All I ask is that some shouldn't get into a tizzy when people use BCE/CE and "Happy Holidays" instead of BC/AD and "Merry Christmas"

I'm good with that.

But at the same time I still think re-labeling A.D/B.C to B.C.E/C.E is kind of....Pointless? Sure, it uses words that aren't tied to Christianity but it's still centered on Jesus's life.

So, it just pisses on Christians for no reason and nobody really benefits.

[The Rich Port]

... The Common Era marking is already in widespread use, at least in the Florida professional environment.

AD/BC has a marked Christian connotation.

It really isn't that big a change. You went from four letters to 5. Whoop-dee-frickin'-doo.

[SD_Film Artists]

Seems unnecessary and overly complicated for no real gain.

This^

I'm not Christian and I'm not offended by the BC/AD system.

[Thermodolia]

All I ask is that some shouldn't get into a tizzy when people use BCE/CE and "Happy Holidays" instead of BC/AD and "Merry Christmas"

I'm good with that.

But at the same time I still think re-labeling A.D/B.C to B.C.E/C.E is kind of....Pointless? Sure, it uses words that aren't tied to Christianity but it's still centered on Jesus's life.

So, it just pisses on Christians for no reason and nobody really benefits.

Well as a Jew I don't believe that Jesus is lord and I'm not going to blaspheme myself

[Thermodolia]

Frankly my dear I don't give a damn.
Also the only problems with BCE/CE are your opinion on it.

It's really funny how much you are getting into a knot over this. Even though CE has been in use since the 15th century

Try reading my post...

The long history of CE is, in fact, trivial because it has nothing to do with why CE is found now... a conscious choice was made that was on par with deciding to use AD, by the first people to do that.

You have not substantiated why my problems with B/CE are non-existent and it is laughable that your closest attempt is to parrot back something I told you.

Like I said before. I. Don't. Give. A. Damn.

[Forsher]

Try reading my post...



You have not substantiated why my problems with B/CE are non-existent and it is laughable that your closest attempt is to parrot back something I told you.

Like I said before. I. Don't. Give. A. Damn.

I don't care what it is that you think you're doing, I am still going to point out, possibly impolitely, that you have left my arguments unaddressed. If you don't want this to happen (as is generally the purpose of stating that one doesn't give a damn) then the only way to prevent this is to not spout rubbish.

I'm good with that.

But at the same time I still think re-labeling A.D/B.C to B.C.E/C.E is kind of....Pointless? Sure, it uses words that aren't tied to Christianity but it's still centered on Jesus's life.

So, it just pisses on Christians for no reason and nobody really benefits.

Well as a Jew I don't believe that Jesus is lord and I'm not going to blaspheme myself

It has no meaning... it is an historical artefact... if you insist on giving it a religious meaning that sits ill with you, I suggest that you campaign for something like BWP and WP for (Before) Western Present... because that system, whilst as arbitrary as ever (which I maintain is irrelevant given the inability to find a non-arbitrary date), neither lends itself well to religious interpretation nor obscures its particularity. Maybe use EP for European Present (1EP = AD1 = 1CE).

[SD_Film Artists]

I suggest that you campaign for something like BWP and WP for (Before) Western Present... because that system, whilst as arbitrary as ever (which I maintain is irrelevant given the inability to find a non-arbitrary date), neither lends itself well to religious interpretation nor obscures its particularity. Maybe use EP for European Present (1EP = AD1 = 1CE).

That sounds like it's only further entrenching the geographical placement of the dating system. You could of course have African and Asian Presents to balance it out, but then you're just spreading the over-politicised nonsense further around rather than removing it.

[Thermodolia]

Like I said before. I. Don't. Give. A. Damn.

I don't care what it is that you think you're doing, I am still going to point out, possibly impolitely, that you have left my arguments unaddressed. If you don't want this to happen (as is generally the purpose of stating that one doesn't give a damn) then the only way to prevent this is to not spout rubbish.

Well as a Jew I don't believe that Jesus is lord and I'm not going to blaspheme myself

It has no meaning... it is an historical artefact... if you insist on giving it a religious meaning that sits ill with you, I suggest that you campaign for something like BWP and WP for (Before) Western Present... because that system, whilst as arbitrary as ever (which I maintain is irrelevant given the inability to find a non-arbitrary date), neither lends itself well to religious interpretation nor obscures its particularity. Maybe use EP for European Present (1EP = AD1 = 1CE).

How about this I get to call it BCE/CE and you can call it whatever the fuck you want. I'm not trying to change anything.

[SD_Film Artists]

I don't care what it is that you think you're doing, I am still going to point out, possibly impolitely, that you have left my arguments unaddressed. If you don't want this to happen (as is generally the purpose of stating that one doesn't give a damn) then the only way to prevent this is to not spout rubbish.



It has no meaning... it is an historical artefact... if you insist on giving it a religious meaning that sits ill with you, I suggest that you campaign for something like BWP and WP for (Before) Western Present... because that system, whilst as arbitrary as ever (which I maintain is irrelevant given the inability to find a non-arbitrary date), neither lends itself well to religious interpretation nor obscures its particularity. Maybe use EP for European Present (1EP = AD1 = 1CE).

How about this I get to call it BCE/CE and you can call it whatever the fuck you want. I'm not trying to change anything.

What if you're making a documentary? "This civilization lived in 500 NMICP, and lived on right into 20 PIB"