I highly doubt that anyone who finds the (meaningless to most people) appellations AD and BC offensive isn’t also offended by fact that the system currently in place measures from Jesus’ purported birth.
Nobody is offended by either of those things.
What I find amusing are all the people who are totally upset that some academics have chosen to use BCE and CE without ever attempting to impose that practice on the general public, but the same offenderatti will incorrectly give the date as 2009 AD, when the correct attribution is AD 2009.
If one needs to be overly picky, one should, at least, attempt to be correct.
…and the months: Roman gods/godesses, emperors and wrongly named “number” months… I call for the re-instatement of the Revolutionary calendar
I understand the idea of non-Christians using a religiously neutral system, but if one is literally taking the word “Christ” to mean “The Messiah” then isn’t “Christian Era” essentially translatable as “The dating system used by those who follow the Messiah”? It doesn’t seem to be an improvement over A.D. Isn’t even using the term “Christianity” essentially the same as saying “followers of the Messiah”? 
The English language is full of little traps and conventions like that; generally the original meaning in the original language is superseded by general usage. I seriously doubt that anyone could avoid all of these conventions, or even most of them.
In academic settings, I have almost always seen BCE translated as “Before Common Era”. “Common Era” as used by European Jews in the 17th century would refer to Christian Europe. To use this as a modern PC term is Eurocentric and rather condescending.
I still say that BC is simply descriptive. A 4 year error (by most accounts) is fairly exact for ancient recordkeeping. A meter is not actually 1/10,000,000 of the distance between the equator and the pole, as originally thought, but this does not invalidate its use academically or historically. There are many similar inaccuracies in general use; I don’t see how dating would be essentially different.
The easiest way to avoid using the AD designator is to simply not use a designator at all. It is essentially the default, so it can almost always be omitted. If I say “Joe DiMaggio hit 32 home runs in 1950”, the reader will automatically assume the AD (or CE if they so desire).
Basically, the whole BCE/CE thing seems a bit silly.
No. It just refers to those who BELIEVE Jesus was the Messiah. There is no tacit acceptance of the title.
No it isn’t. Christianity originated in Asia and had spread to all 6 populated continents by the 1700’s (most well before then).
I don’t think close is good enough, for one thing, but more importantly, it’s inappropriate to expect non-Christians to call Jesus their Messiah. Deal with it. No one is trying to stop Christians from doing it.
You would still need a way to designate the era, and you’re still stuck with the inappropriate request for non-Christians to call Jesus the Messiah. Since no one is trying to stop Christians from using BC/AD, I don’t know why they’re so sniffy about what somebody else wants to say. It’s exactly the same as when they get bent out of shape because somebody tells them “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”
No one is calling for the reinstatement of anything. No one is demanding that anybody stop using BC/AD if they want to. This is just Christian offenderati getting upset because somebody else doesn’t want to recognize their deity as “Messiah” or “Lord.”
You’re making too much sense. All you’ll get is “La la la, I can’t hear you. BCE/CE makes perfect sense. La la la!”
Yeah, it’s just “some academics”
Personally, I couldn’t care less if we all switched to BCE/CE. If that’s where we are all headed, that’s fine. I just think it’s a stupid non-solution for the “problem” that some offenderatti apparently grapple with every day, poor souls.
Just to clarify, one of the reasons that BCE/CE is stupid, is because none of the abbreviations (or “backronyms”) make any sense:
[ul]
[li]“Christian era”: So basically, for the next several thousand years, it will be the “Christian era”? The year 23,051 will be the 23,051th year of the “Christian era”? What do the Chinese and Indians, among others, have to say about that?[/li][li]“Common Era”: Why is this era “common”? The numbering system may be common among many people, but that doesn’t mean the era is common. It makes no sense.[/li][li]“Current Era”: Why is this era “current”? And why did the “current” era begin when Christians thought their Messiah was born? Why would non-Christians designate the birth of Christ as the beginning of what is the “current” era?[/li][/ul]
It’s you guys that are the offenderati. Nobody’s trying to tell you what to say or write. No one is offended if you do. It’s you guys with the sand in your vaginas because somebody else doesn’t want to venerate your God.
[quote=“Polerius, post:70, topic:497657”]
Just to clarify, one of the reasons that BCE/CE is stupid, is because none of the abbreviations (or “backronyms”) make any sense:
[ul]
[li]“Christian era”: So basically, for the next several thousand years, it will be the “Christian era”?[/li][/quote]
Nope. No one says it has to stay that way forever. It will stay that way until something else comes along. It’s good enough for now.
[quote]
[li]“Common Era”: Why is this era “common”? The numbering system may be common among many people, but that doesn’t mean the era is common. It makes no sense.[/li][/quote]
It just means the numbering system is what is commonly used. It isn’t intended to imply that there’s anythjing “common” about the era itself. Don’t be a dunce.
[quote]
[li]“Current Era”: Why is this era “current”?[/li][/quote]
Because it’s the number sytem currently in use. It’s easier just to recognize the numbers that are currently used (as arbitrary as they may be), and take the devotional language out of it than it is to expect everybody else to change the numbers.
It wasn’t non-Christians who came up with the dates. They’re just trying to adapt as inoffensively as possible to a system they inherited through no design of their own.
Why is it so important for you that non-Christians call your Jesus “Messiah” and “Lord?” Do you really need Jews to do that to make you feel good about yourself? Why do you care? No one is trying to tell YOU what to say?
[emphasis mine]
You’re barking up the wrong tree
BCE/CE is stupid. One need not be a Christian to realize that.
Youa have yet to articulate a reason why it’s “stupid,” except to assert over and over that it’s so.
I will ask again – are Jews being “stupid” if they don’t want to call Jesus “Messiah” or “Lord?” Yes or no.
I’ll just summarize: You are completely wrong, and possibly verging on self-delusion at this point.
As I mentioned in the post above, you have it all wrong about what I am or want.
I don’t care about people calling Jesus the “Messiah”.
I think the best system overall is if we go away from any religious-based event to denote the beginning of the “Current Era”.
If that is inconvenient, the next best thing is to use positive and negative numbers, as **Arnold **mentioned above.
You’re not a very good judge of your opponents’ character or motivations.
If you have trouble with comprehension, I have stated the reasons in post #70.
And, BTW, your refutations in post #72 are laughable.
I absolutely stomped your ludicrous, half-witted bullet points into the ground. You have no rebuttal but impotent name calling.
Are Jews stupid if they don’t want to call Jesus “Christ” or “Lord?” Why won’t you answer that question?
So, how many insulting posts have you been compelled to submit regarding this issue about which you don’t care?
As a kid, when I discovered what BC and AD meant, I was a bit puzzled. I didn’t believe in God, and most people I knew only believed in God when it came to weddings, Christenings and funerals (and many didn’t even go that far), but we had a whole dating system based on the existence of this supposed Christ? BC meant ‘before Christ,’ which pretty much presumes he was born.
Way to impose values.
Imagine you’re talking to a ten-year-old who’s not a Christian. How would you justify using the terms ‘before Christ’ and ‘the year of our Lord’ to number history?
I’m not offended when anyone uses AD and BC to refer to years (I actually prefer them in some ways, because that’s what I grew up with and so much literature uses those terms), but I do think that CE and BCE are better in this year of our Lord 2009. Yeah, they’re still based on the old BC/AD numbering, but that’s just being practical - keeping the numbering and the tradition while doing away with the imposed values of ‘before Christ.’
It’s not about ‘not offending people who aren’t Christian,’ (if was about ‘not offending people,’ do you think that ‘Christian’ would get a mention?), it’s about having a dating system which doesn’t include ‘Christ was born.’
Or any non-Christian for that matter. Why the emphasis on Jews? Christians are only a minority of the world’s population, and Jews a much much smaller minority.