**
I swear to, er, I promise I’m not trying to be a wise ass, but what exactly is the difference? Are we just getting into semantics here?
If you don’t wear a yarmulke, does that mean you’re offended by yarmulkes? If you don’t pray facing Mecca, does that mean you’re offended by Mecca? If you don’t pray the rosary, does that mean you’re offended by rosaries?
Translation: “Why should anyone care what they, specifically, think, when there are other more numerous groups out there with equally valid potential problems with the issue, and those other groups have, so far- not raised any objections to the current Way Of Doing Things?”
Not yet. Give it a few years and that will change. And not in a good way.
Because A) It’s not “Christian Devotional Language” anymore than the name of Christchurch, NZ is “Christian Devotional Language” and B) It hurts be because it leads to tree-hugging lefties (and the people who adopt this sort of thing are tree-hugging lefties IME, with the exception of Jewish people, who get a pass because I don’t know any IRL) telling me that the way that something relatively inocuous which has been done A Perfectly Functional Certain Way for millenia is “Wrong” and we should start using some made-up PC bullshit term to keep a minority of a minority happy. That’s why I care and why it hurts me.
And I care if they don’t use the commonly accepted term in Peer Reviewed Publications because
(Sorry, missed edit window) “… because that changes the Perfectly Good System We Have Now for absolutely no reason whatsoever, but exposes countless academics to the vagaries of the PC Offenderati when they (the PC brigade) really need to be told to pull their heads out of their asses and STFU.”
There is no attempt to change anything. It IS devotional language. No one is telling you anything is “wrong.” It has nothing to do with political correctness. No one is offended by anyone who uses the traditional convention. The only people getting offended are those who can’t stand it if someone else doesn’t want to call Jesus their Messiah.
Re-read what I said. There’s no attempt to change anything yet. But there will be- I’m seeing the BCE use more and more in history books and the like, and unless there’s an unequivocal “Oi. You. No.” from historians in regard to the “new” system, there’s a danger it will become even more of a “competing standard”- which, if there’s one thing Historians don’t need, is another pointless squabble over trivia or another confusing change in terminology or nomenclature.
I’m offended by the existence of a competing "made-up"dating prefix that’s suddenly becoming popular for no reason, and I don’t call Jesus “Messiah”- I’m not a religious person but I prefer the (originally) religion-based dating system.
Okay, you’re just weird. Not wanting to change the existing system for convenience’ sake, I understand. But preferring it?
I prefer it because I am, in many respects, a Traditionalist. And thus, in this instance, given a choice between The Traditional And Familiar System That Works Perfectly Well And Everyone Has Been Fine With For Millennia, and an arbitrary made-up system designed by people I am politically and ideologically opposed to (the Politcally Correct) to please a minority of a minority, none of whom I have any dealings with, of course I’m going to prefer TTAFSTWPWAEHBFWFM.
Why, exactly, should someone not have a preference between two choices?
As Dio has been saying, it’s the traditionalists who seem to be looking for a fight here. I prefer B.C.E./C.E., but I really have no problem with someone who prefers B.C./A.D. (so long as they put the “A.D.” in the correct place). It’s perfectly plausible for two systems to exist simultaneously and harmoniously, especially since they use exactly the same numbers. At some point there may very well reach a stage at which B.C.E. drops off and then largely disappears or at which B.C.E. reaches a critical mass and then B.C. becomes the outlier. But you know what, that happens with language all the time. Stuff changes. It’s interesting that it’s the traditionalists here who are getting all “War Against Christmas” about it.
Get back to us when that happens. I have no interest in trying to refute paranoid speculation about the future.
- It’s not a “competing” system. It’s a voluntary alternative to using devotional language.
- ALL dating conventions are “made up.”
- How does it hurt you? No one is trying to make YOU use it.
If you say “BC,” then you’re calling Jesus the Messiah.
The CE convention was also a religion based innovation, by the way. It was devised by people who didn’t want to violate their own religious precepts by calling Jesus “Messiah” or “Lord.” The fact that it also serves adequately as a secular convention is an incidental result, not a designed one.
Dio, I’m mostly on your side here, but I have a slight argument with that statement. To most Americans, the word Christ is simply a surname; they give no thought to its proper or literal meaning. Otherwise they would refer to the possibly-mythical son of Mary & Joseph as Jesus THE Christ, just as they refer to his cousin as John the Baptist.
If I am recall aright, the first word of your screen name means, literally, born of zeus, and the second like a dog. But though I know the words’ literal meaning, I don’t think you’re claiming to have been sired by the lord of Olympus, perhaps while he was in the form of an Alsatian.
Although that would be interesting.
Anyway… most Christians I know don’t put all that much thought into the literal, historical, or etymological implications of their words. The biggest church hereabouts styles its board of bishops the Presidium, which to me bespeaks a very brief search through the dictionary without actually reading the definitions.
Jews do. So do a lot of other non-Christians.
I think this is the main point. Lots of people don’t know the meaning of “Christ” and a lot of us who do aren’t particularly bothered about it.
I’m just glad this thread came up as I wasn’t really aware of these designations and one does want to understand what one sees on the history channel! I’m not really faced with writing historical dates in my day to day life, but if I ever have to I’ll try to anticipate which form would be better received.
I’m not a trained historian but have been aware of the “new” nomenclature for some time now. It’s not confusing to me. And all the systems were “made up” by somebody.
If things never changed, we wouldn’t need historians. If you are so easily confused, perhaps it’s time to consider retirement.
Agreed, but it’s not just the ‘Christ’ bit that is devotional, it’s that it says ‘before Christ.’ That presumes he actually existed. It is a little odd to use a term that specifically says the messiah existed if you don’t believe he did. That’s why I prefer CE to BC, though I don’t mind what other people use and can understand people wanting to stick to the tradition. (Hell, I sing carols at Christmas myself because it’s traditional, even though I don’t believe).
Yeah, I’m the one who started the name calling:
As an agnostic, I cannot fathom using “Christchurch”, so I shall henceforth start calling it “CurrentEraChurch”. I’m not forcing anyone else to use it, so it should be fine, right?
Also, I don’t believe that Saints existed, so I shall come up with a new name for any city that has that in its name, e.g. San Francisco and San Jose.
I’m not offended by the use of “Saint” in city names, I just prefer not to say that word, since it goes against my worldview.
So long as the people you communicate with are able to understand what you’re talking about, then you’re golden.
You realize that it’s not unheard of for names of places to change, right? Before the era of the modern state apparatus, it usually happened when some people started using a different name, for whatever reason. Sometimes it stuck. Sometimes it didn’t. That’s life.
Isn’t the meaning of “Christ” simply “anointed”? It’s not any different then “Buddha” meaning “awakened”. Calling Jesus “Christ” should not be any more offensive then calling Siddhartha “Buddha”. The designations can be used for convenience without implying any religious beliefs.
There is no religious implication to the title of “Buddha.”