Hmm. You’re right. Pali is not a form of Sanskrit, though- it’s a separate language.
Go ahead and play. You’re still wrong, and you know you’re wrong.
There’s a little more personal edge when you’re being asked not just to do something as offensive as recognizing a false Messiah, but being asked to do it by a religion which has a centuries long history brutally persecuting you for NOT doing it.
True, but it’s really close. I thought Pali was a dialect of Sanskrit, but Wiki tells me it’s a separate language. Supposedly it was the language of Siddhartha himself, like Aramaic was to Jesus.
My biggest grief with the change is it’s totally superficial. The dates are STILL the same. 1BC is 1 before christ or 1 before common era.
It’s like saying “You know seperation is an awful term, let’s call it Apartheid” And everyone says “Oh yes, now the identical practice is no longer offensive.”
Or saying “Skunk is such an ugly word, let’s call it a smell kitty.” Oh now the animal no longer stinks.
I think there’s a misunderstanding here that people who use the “CE” convention do so because they don’t like the presumptive event from which the dates are numbered. Most people who do so don’t care that the numbers derive from the advent of Christianity as the advent of a distinct historical “era.” They just don’t want to use devotional terminology for it. One more time, recognizing the significance of Christianity is not the same thing as recognizing any religious TRUTH in it.
I’m embarassed to say that I was not aware of these new (to me) notations until I saw it on the history channel. Even then I didn’t understand what it stood for. The boyfriend tried to convince me it stands for “Before the Church of England” (he was kidding but I almost believed him:smack:) I haven’t thought about it until this thread. I can’t say I care about it one way or another, but it does seem fairly petty and makes me think of the parodied feminist that says “herstory” and “ovester”.
Because just as the roots of “history” and “semester” (although I use “ovestre” myself) are not related to masculinity, the etymologies of B.C. and A.D. (“Before Christ” and “Anno Domini” = “The year of our Lord,” respectively) are not related to Christian devotion? 
Wait…what? I’m sorry, Kimmy, I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or are annoyed / confused by what I said. Sorry to be dense.
Strictly speaking, I guess you could say they’re not; “before Christ” doesn’t necessarily have devotional overtones, and domini (genitive singular) refers to a master, not our master; it’s translated “Year of our Lord” idiomatically.
ETA: WPB, he’s disagreeing with you.
Christ means “Messiah.” It definitely does have devotional overtones which are especially significant to Jews who are still expecting the Messiah.
This is a distinction without a difference. I don’t think he’s OUR Lord, THE Lord or A Lord. It is inappropriate to expect people to use a title for Jesus which contradicts their own beliefs.
Even setting aside attempts to parse the word “Lord” as non-religious, there is NO way to de-religify “Messiah.”
Here’s a compromise: those who want to can read BCE and CE as “Before Christian Era” and “Christian Era”. Usage will establish it as an alternate.
Count me in as one who is perfectly fine with BCE and CE, but wouldn’t it just make more sense to use negative numbers? e.g. The Greeks kicked the Persians’ butts at Marathon in -490.
Negative numbers are a much more sane choice than “common era” or “current era”.
If people want to get away from Christian connotations of the calendar year notation, I think the options are, in increasing levels of rationality:
(1) Keep numbering the same, but use BCE & CE
(2) Keep numbering the same, but use positive & negative numbers
(3) Change numbering, and use a non-religious event as the starting point
(1) is too dumb while (3) may be too cumbersome, so (2) may be the best compromise
There’s nothing dumb about “Common/Christian Era.” Those are both perfectly valid descriptors for the era. You know what’s REALLY dumb? Counting BC/AD from a date that’s miscalculated by at least 4 years.
So we change the name and still use the mistaken calculation for the same event? (up yours, Dionysius Exiguus)
I don’t care about BCE/CE (I teach at a Catholic school and my students have to know what it means), but I’ll never use it on my own.
Now, if we can only get rid of those Norse gods in the days of the week…no more of that silly superstition
That’s not as dumb as people who believe, and sometimes teach in Sunday School classes, that AD is short for After Death. And yes, I have a specific person in mind.
This person also believes Hosea 9:6, which includes, in some translations, the clause “and Memphis will bury them,” is a prophecy relating to the city in which I live rather than a reference to the ancient Egyptian capital.
Once you change the name, the calculation is irrelevant, because all “common” means is “the one most of us happen to use.” It no longer refers to any specific event.
You cannot posibly beleive that… well I’m sure you can, but the connection, albeit a mathematically incorrect one, will forever be there.
“Sir, why is this the year 2009 CE and not 3568?”
“It’s the one we use.”
Why wouldn’t I believe it? The sole reason that I myself use the convention that we’re now in 2009 is that everyone else uses that convention. It’s entirely arbitrary, just like any other calendar convention or system of measurement.
Furthermore, “it’s entirely arbitrary” also happens to be (1) more logical, (2) more honest, and (3) more comprehensible than “It’s based on an erroneous assumption regarding when this one guy was born.” Because if you know it’s erroneous, then why even bother with that guy who wasn’t born then?
Because we inherited an archaic and ethnocentric system which is now very difficult to alter, but which we can defang by recognizing the era without the devotional language.
For like the tenth time, recognizing the historical significance of the advent of Christianity is not the same as recognizing any of its beliefs.