Am I the only one who prefers BC and AD to CE and BCE?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

RNATB makes a similar point as well (the “essential practice” of Christianity is the belief in the divinity and redemption of Jesus Christ). I am not sure I buy it. Suppose a person had the requisite belief in JC, but beyond that, his religious life was indistinguishable from that of an atheist or a Muslim. I don’t know that we would readily call such person a Christian.

What exactly is “the religious life of an atheist?” I think you may need to rephrase your question here, since even the “religious life of a Muslim” necessarily contains explicit statements of belief which conflict with Christianity.

To answer what I think you’re asking, most Christian denominations would accept that essential Christian beliefs can be summed up by the Nicene Creed. (To summarize, it is a statement of belief that Jesus is God, he died for our sins, he was resurrected on the 3rd day, and he will return). That represents the core definition, the minimal requirements for who is or is not a Christian. Required practices vary from denomination to denomination. Christianity is primarily a religion of creed, not practice. It’s defined by what the adherent believes, not what he does. If you perform every Catholic practice, but have no belief in God, you’re not a Christian. If you perform NO denominational practices at all, but accept the creed, you’re a Christian.

Also, who decides this? Is there a significant fraction of Christians who say “Whatever else you do, if you do this you are Christian, everything else is optional.”

Yes. It was called the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.

I don’t know if this get said, or if it does get said, whether it is implemented in practice. (I.e., do these people who claim the possibility of “minimal Christianity” really not inveigle things like church attendance or evangelizing or the like?)

Some do, some don’t. Some Christians decry all organized churches and rely on the Bible alone. What really makes the Creed “essential” is not that it derives from an authoritative declaration, but that it’s the common denominator. It’s the core that all denominations share and recognize as essential. They might not all recognize it as sufficient, but it’s the part they all recognize as necessary, which cannot be said of any specific practices.

Even still, can we be sure this essential/optional split is just not an artifact of Christianity? For instance, although RNATB states the minimal practice of Islam is “submission to Allah,” the expression of this submission incorporates a whole host of practices.

RNATB is a little bit off on Islam. What is essential to Islam is really the Pillars – the 5 specific practices. Most Muslims will say that even if you believe in basic Muslim doctrine (“There is no God but God, and Mohammed was his prophet”), but do not engage in the physical practices of prayer 5 times a day, fasting during Ramadan, etc, that you are still not a Muslim. Unlike Christianity, Islam is a religion of essential practice as well as belief.

Not really a circle, more like a Möbius strip! What I was getting at with the phrase “with respect to their religion” is that a commonality of belief among Buddhists is not alone enough to make it a Buddhist belief, although it is a necessary condition.

This is where you’re wrong. The goal of enlightement, and basic acceptance of the 4 Noble truths is really the only thing that is common to all forms of Buddhism.

For instance, let’s take it as probable that most Buddhists who have a belief regarding the matter believe that Kathmandu is the capital of Nepal. Let’s go further and state that proportionally more Buddhists know this fact than non-Buddhists.

So, here is a common, and even somewhat distinctive, belief among Buddhists: Kathmandu is the capital of Nepal. Nevertheless, no on confuses this for a Buddhist belief. Neither essentially nor optionally.

You’re making my point for me. This is exactly what we’ve been trying to say to you. Just because, for instance, a lot of Buddhists believe in reincarnation, that does not make reincarnation an essential Buddhist belief.

Yes. And that’s an interesting question: why is national patriotism not religion? If my “Religion X is what people who practice Religion X do and believe in respect of there religion” is a Möbius strip, then your response here, “no metaphysical beliefs,” is a Klein bottle. It does not lean quite so conspicuously on presupposing what religion is, but in truth, by “no metaphysical beliefs” you mean “no religious beliefs” or at least “no beliefs we typically associate with religion.”

No, by “no metaphysical beliefs,” I mean, for lack of a better word, no supernatural beliefs.

But if you can explain how we know if a given belief is metaphysical without reference to religion, you will have pulled off a remarkable accomplishment.

I don’t think that any metaphysical belief is NOT religious. I think it’s one and the same. Any belief that anything exists outside of, or transcendent of the plain, physical universe is a religious belief.

[JThunder]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

For lots and lots of people, it only means “Messiah,” and the Messiah hasn’t come yet. It’s not for the “vast majority” to decide how the minority has to view the word or to dictate whether they should feel religiously comfortable using it.

And yet that’s exactly what you’re trying to do. You’re insisting that the word should ONLY be treated as an official religious title, even though a great many other people simply treat it as someone’s name.

So why is it wrong for “the ‘vast majority’ to decide how the minority has to view the word”, whereas it’s perfectly okay for you to insist that people must treat it in the manner that you decide?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@JThunder

And yet that’s exactly what you’re trying to do. You’re insisting that the word should ONLY be treated as an official religious title, even though a great many other people simply treat it as someone’s name.

So why is it wrong for “the ‘vast majority’ to decide how the minority has to view the word”, whereas it’s perfectly okay for you to insist that people must treat it in the manner that you decide?

This is all completely false. I’m not dictating how anybody has to view it. I’m saying everybody should be able to view it however they want. I’m not trying to stop anybody from using the BC/AD convention. I’m saying use whatever you want.

[Acsenray]

@JThunder

So why is it wrong for “the ‘vast majority’ to decide how the minority has to view the word”, whereas it’s perfectly okay for you to insist that people must treat it in the manner that you decide?

Because that’s exactly what he’s not doing.

[JThunder]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

This is all completely false. I’m not dictating how anybody has to view it. I’m saying everybody should be able to view it however they want.

And yet when I said that historians accept that Christ existed, your exact response was to say “No, it’s accepted that Jesus existed, not that he was ‘Christ’ or ‘Lord.’” That is a pretty clear case of insisting that the word should be interpreted as a title rather than as a name.

There is no definite article before “Christ” in the term “Before Christ.” According to the rules of English grammar then, the more proper interpretation is to regard it as a personal name rather than as a title in that context.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@JThunder

And yet when I said that historians accept that Christ existed, your exact response was to say “No, it’s accepted that Jesus existed, not that he was ‘Christ’ or ‘Lord.’” That is a pretty clear case of insisting that the word should be interpreted as a title rather than as a name.

No, it’s a case of pointing out that not everybody accepts that the word “Christ” is only a name (which it really isn’t. It IS a title. You can think of it as a name if you want to, I don’t care, but it’s not especially accurate, and you shouldn’t expect that everybody else has to share your personal interpretation).

[SciFiSam]

@JThunder

Yes, but that’s not the comment I was responding to.
Right. It does NOT say that. It simply says “Before Christ” – and the word “Christ” can be used as either a personal name or as a religious title for the Messiah.

The vast majority of people simply treat it as a personal name. This is especially evident when they refer to him as “Christ” rather than “The Christ.”

Um, did you not read the rest of my last post?

Yes, most people think of a it as a personal name, but it’s not like they think it refers to some random dude called Jesus Christ. It is definitely referring to the Biblical Jesus as if he definitely existed. It’s not referring to a potential historical figure who was the basis of the Jesus myth, it’s referring to the religious supernatural Jesus.

Anno Domini is also not referring to Lord Melchett of Dewsbury. It’s referring to the Christian God. I’d say that’s obvious, but it’s never safe to take anything for granted here. Hell, I’m having to defend the statement that BC is about the existence of the Biblical Christ!

Course, if people want to ignore that and continue using BC and AD, that’s fine by me - like I said, I’m capable of that sort of doublethink when I sing Christmas Carols.

[JThunder]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No, it’s a case of pointing out that not everybody accepts that the word “Christ” is only a name…

And if I had insisted that it was only a name, your argument would have merit. However, I specifically and repeatedly pointed out that it can be used as a name OR as a title. So why do you insist that I’m only regardin it as a name?

which it really isn’t. It IS a title.

Which I not only acknowledged, but emphasized. It is used as a title. It is also used as a name. The lack of a definite article (“the”) indicates when it is being used as a name, even though it was a title (“Χριστός”) in the original Greek.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It’s not really used as a name. It’s commonly misunderstood as a name.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Yes. It was called the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.

I see what you did there.

[magnusblitz]

I prefer BC/AD to BCE/CE simply because:

1. BC/AD are both two-letter acronyms, which helps make for easier alignment/spacing things when using dates in a list

2. The letters in BC/AD are completely different and therefore can be parsed quicker (whereas CE/BCE are only one letter different and can be confused when quickly reading).

Atheist here btw, so one might think I’d prefer the non-religious connotation, but I’m willing to overlook it for practical reasons.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It’s not really used as a name. It’s commonly misunderstood as a name.

Isn’t that how language works? You do realize that words drift form their etymology? You do realize that this is the 21st century and that words in English (or Spanish) are not permanently connected to their etymology? If enough people use it as a name (or nickname) then it becomes that.
Whatver the meaning/grammatical function is/was on the original language, what is important is what people use the word for?

For example: “Blue” comes from an Indo-European word that meant “yellow”, then a Latin words meaning “white”, then in Old English “pale” of “volour or bruised skin”. Is it wrong to call blue “blue”?

[JThunder]

@magnusblitz

I prefer BC/AD to BCE/CE simply because:

1. BC/AD are both two-letter acronyms, which helps make for easier alignment/spacing things when using dates in a list

2. The letters in BC/AD are completely different and therefore can be parsed quicker (whereas CE/BCE are only one letter different and can be confused when quickly reading).

Atheist here btw, so one might think I’d prefer the non-religious connotation, but I’m willing to overlook it for practical reasons.

But… but… by doing so, you are acknowledging that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah! Horrors! Surely you don’t want to do that!!!

[JThunder]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It’s not really used as a name. It’s commonly misunderstood as a name.

That’s your interpretation. And yet a mere moment ago, you said, “You shouldn’t expect that everybody else has to share your personal interpretation.”

Ají de Gallina is correct; word usage changes with time. With regard to “Christ,” it changed rather quickly. No less than the Apostle Paul referred to Jesus as “Christ” (for example, in Romans 1:16, 5:6-8, 6:4-9; 1 Corinthians 1:12-17; 2 Corinthians 2:10-17, and numerous other places). Paul’s writings were the earliest of all the New Testament documents, which means that he sets an extraordinarily early precedent for the use of “Christ” as a proper name. What’s more, he cited early creedal material in 1 Corinthians 15:2-7, a fact that even skeptical historians acknowledge. This creedal material refers to his leader as “Christ,” and it is commonly dated to withing three to five years after the death of Jesus. Even if we assume a more generous dating of ten years afterward, it still provides a very early example of its use as a proper name – used by Jesus’s own followers, no less!

To say that it’s not a name is simply an extravagant and unsupported declaration, especially when one considers its common usage.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Paul was using the word as a title. The fact the he sometimes used the word without a direct article (but not as often as you think – just because the article isn’t there in the English translations doesn’t mean they aren’t there in Greek. Your first cite from Romans, for instance, says Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of the Christ.”) does not mean he though that was Jesus’ name. He was usung it as an honorific, in exactly the way someone might say, “Lord Krishna.”

You are welcome to understand (or misunderstand, as I would still maintain) the word “Christ” anyway you want, but that doesn’t mean you have somehow settled the issue that it’s now and for always only a name which no one has a right to feel an aversion to using.

No one is trying to tell you guys what you have to say, I don’t understand why it gets so up your nose if someone doesn’t want to personally use language whih they feel is inappopriate to their own religious or philosophical or stylistic stance.

[JThunder]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Paul was using the word as a title. The fact the he sometimes used the word without a direct article (but not as often as you think – just because the article isn’t there in the English translations doesn’t mean they aren’t there in Greek. Your first cite from Romans, for instance, says Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of the Christ.”) does not mean he though that was Jesus’ name. He was usung it as an honorific, in exactly the way someone might say, “Lord Krishna.”

Nonsense. In your example, “Krishna” is a name and “Lord” is the honorific. It is not at all analogous to calling someone “Christ” as opposed to “the Christ.”

I’ll grant that the definite article did not always make its way into the English translations; however, the point remains that Paul DID use “Christ” as a name and not merely as a title. Even if you disregard that though, modern usage most certainly does include its use as a name rather than exclusively as a religious title.

And the use of the definite article is extremely important. If you refer to someone as “The Pope,” then you’re clearly using the P-word in a titular sense. In contrast, if you say “I read the writings of Pope,” then you’re using it as proper name – and in this case, quite likely referring to the poet by the same name.

[Yookeroo]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

Suppose a person had the requisite belief in JC, but beyond that, his religious life was indistinguishable from that of an atheist or a Muslim. I don’t know that we would readily call such person a Christian.

Why not?

@JThunder

But… but… by doing so, you are acknowledging that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah! Horrors! Surely you don’t want to do that!!!

Straw man.

Why is it so hard to understand why some Jews (and others) are uncomfortable with BC/AD? I really don’t understand the resistance here. It’s not all that difficult.

[JThunder]

@Yookeroo

Straw man.

It’s the same argument that others have offered in this thread.

Why is it so hard to understand why some Jews (and others) are uncomfortable with BC/AD? I really don’t understand the resistance here. It’s not all that difficult.

I don’t find that difficult to understand at all, and I’m not arguing against it. However, I do think it’s absurd to say that by using BC/AD, one is acknowledging Jesus as the Christ. That’s a huge stretch.

[Yookeroo]

@JThunder

It’s the same argument that others have offered in this thread.

Has anyone claimed that everyone using BC/AD is acknowledging that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah?

@JThunder

I don’t find that difficult to understand at all, and I’m not arguing against it. However, I do think it’s absurd to say that by using BC/AD, one is acknowledging Jesus as the Christ. That’s a huge stretch.

Huh? If you understand why some Jews (and others) are uncomfortable using BC/AD, what is it that makes them uncomfortable about it if it isn’t that they interpret is as acknowledging Jesus as the Christ?

[Napier]

When I first saw this thread I thought it was referring to line segments.