If the problem with BC is the religious implications of “Christ”, I hereby propose that we change it to Before Jesus.
So the great pyramid of Giza was built in 2560 BJ.
Socrates dies in 399 BJ.
Cleopatra, of course, was born in 69 BJ.
I can see no problems with this. Who’s with me?
Except that that’s nothing like a dating system which presumes Christ was born. The town Westward Ho! is named after a fictional town, but that doesn’t mean anyone is going to refuse to use the name.
FWIW, I’ve also never heard anyone claim that no saints ever existed.
There’s as much religious implication to “Buddha” as “Christ”. They’re both descriptive titles given to leaders of religious movements.
No. “Messiah” has specific religious meanings (albeit different ones) in Christianity and Judaism. “Buddha” has no religious meaning even within Buddhism. “Messiah” is a religious title. “Buddha” is not.
Having said that, it’s not for anyone else to decide what titles Jews or other non-Christians may or may not regard as having religious significance or what they should have to say. If they don’t want to say it, why do you care?
ETA, while"Buddha" is a descriptive title, “Messiah” is not. It’s a unique designation.
If you can name a town based on something/someone from fiction, what’s the problem with naming the year we are in based on something/someone from fiction?
I’m not claiming the people who the cities are named after never existed. I’m saying that those people were not “Saints”, and forcing someone to say “San Francisco” is forcing them the acknowledge that Francisco was a Saint, at least to the same degree that forcing someone to say “BC” is forcing them to acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah.
In reality, of course, when someone says “San Francisco” they are simply acknowledging that Francisco was considered a Saint by the Christians who founded the modern incarnation of the city, just as when someone says “BC” they are simply acknowledging that Jesus was considered the Messiah by the Christians who created the year numbering system we use today.
There’s plenty of things that many people have agreed to over a vast period of time, so I don’t think that’s a fair point of value. Familiarity doesn’t seem to be particularly hurt, since the two systems cover the same points of time. It doesn’t work perfectly well, since it’s inaccurate.
Considering your fear that the group you oppose seek to use an alternative (in addition to other systems) in order to please a minority of a minority, while you yourself are part of a minority of a minority who seek to not use an alternative, i’m not entirely sure why you consider yourself much different from the other side. If political correctness seeks to cause the least offense possible simply for the sake of doing so (or whatever definition you would give it), then surely by your own words you place value in being anti-politically correct simply for the sake of being so. You would appear to be idealogically quite in synch with them.
NO? none at all?
Mr. Gautama is famous not for his killer chicken piccata but for his relligious/views?
It really doesn’t matter, by the way, if Buddha in Pali means “enlightened” or “vermillion flycatcher”. What people think when they hear Buddha is ALWAYS religious (unlees you’re the editor of the Oxford Pali dictionary).
I could understand more in Spanish, for instance, where you always say “antes/después de Cristo” and never use an initialism, but in English the initials ARE the word, you don’t say “before Christ” or “Anno Domini” (except in purely christian contexts.
In English it’s like saying “Thursday” or “April”; are you worshipping Thor or Aprilis? Call it anyway you want, it ain’t a big deal, but it’s still silly (like, for example the proposal of chaging North Dakota name to Dakota to avoid “cold” connotations)
Well, if, as wikipediasays " ‘buddha’ usually refers to one who has become enlightened (i.e., awakened to the truth)", they must have attained the truth of what the perfect chicken piccata recipe is. 
Other than that, there is no religious connotation to the term “Buddha”. At all. :dubious:
Perfect lamb rogan josh, actually.
Nope. None at all.
His teachings were not religious. That’s a misconception.
There is nothing in the title that conflicts with Jewish beliefs. You can scream about it all you want, but it’s really their feelings on what is or is not religiously comfortable, not yours to dictate.
Jews know what it means, and a lot of them do not wish to violate their own religious beliefs by calling Jesus their “Lord” or their “Messiah.” Why should they have to? Why do YOU care? Who are you to decide how other people should feel about religious language.
There is no religious connotation to being enlightened. You guys really have no idea what you’re talking about.
I don’t know what I bother, but here goes:
From wikipedia:
Now, I’m no religious scholar, but I would assume that neither Christians nor Jewish religious doctrine teaches
So, calling someone enlightened (in the Buddha sense) does conflict with both Christian and Jewish beliefs.
I remeber first seeing CE/BCE in high school, around 1997. I had no clue what the actual dates were. Confused the hell out of me for several days until I searched around on the internet (28.8 modem, so it took a while). There was no effort made to inform us that the dates were the same as they ever were. This is why I hate seeing CE/BCE.
I know at least two persons who claim to be both Buddhist and Christian.
Yes, but does that mean there is no conflict between the two teachings, or that your friends don’t mind the conflicts, and just cherry pick parts of those two cosmotheories that suit their needs?
:: shrugging ::
I’m not as conversant with Buddhism as I should be, but I know a good deal about Xtianity, and I don’t think it’s possible to be Xtian without cherry-picking. Liberal Christians admit it; fundamentalists, evangelicals, and pentecostals do not.
I was raised in a denomination of the latter tradition; my sisters still belong to it. One of them, god love her, recently insisted to me that she follows the whole Bible in every detail, as the entire Bible is god-inspired, inerrant, and so forth. When I mentioned all the Old Testament laws she does not adhere to, she immediately insisted that those were ritual prohibitions & requirements rather than spiritual ones; the former were superseded by the advent of everybody’s favorite carpenter.
I only rolled my eyes in private.
Siddhartha Gautma did not teach anything about reincarnation or karma. He said that it was a waste of time to ponder the afterlife. None of the 4 Noble truths have any religious connotations. You don’t know what you’re talking about and I do. You should drop this. The title of Buddha conflicts with nothing in Jewish beliefs. Calling a dead guy “Christ” and “Lord” conflicts with a bunch of it. The historical Buddha was a philosophical and psychological teacher, not a religious one. He made no supernatural or metaphysical statements of any kind.
There is no conflict. You just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
ETA, it probably helps if you know that karma and reincarnation are not necessary Buddhist beliefs.
How about "Because until the tree-huggers came along there was no “Other Side” in the debate for the most part?
Let me expand my objection a little more, after the benefit of sleep:
Right now, the accepted way of rendering dates is 1234 BC and AD 1234 ( or, a popularly accepted alternative, 1234 AD). There’s a tiny minority of religious scholars who, for some bizarre reason, take exception to this (but not, as others have pointed out, references to Christchurch, San Francisco) and the PC brigade has seized on this to try and get rid of the current system and replace it with the BCE/CE system.
Which means that, in 20 years time, it’s entirely possible I’ll be writing a piece on an historic event and use the AD date format (Say, AD 1879) and get know-it-alls saying “No, it’s 1879 CE, AD 1879 is offensive to non-Christians”. It already happens now when I’m referring to Leningrad in a historic (WWII) context and I get people saying “It’s St. Petersburg now”, to which I reply “Yes, but during World War II it was Leningrad”, whilst they come back with “But it’s called St. Petersburg and not Leningrad now.” :smack:
I’m anti-Political Correctness for a number of reasons that are not “simply for the sake of being so”. This isn’t the thread for a Why Martini Enfield Hates Political Correctness rant, so I’ll refrain from going into further detail, other than to point out I am very much ideologically in synch with the PC brigade.
Bridget Burke, I sincerely hope you’re not accusing me of being a doddering old man. I’m 27. The new nomenclature doesn’t confuse me, I just object to its use.
Dio, how am I calling Jesus “Messiah” by using a dating system that says “Before Christ”? It’s a convenient historical marker, nothing more. Even “Anno Domini” (Year of Our Lord) can still be interpreted to mean “Year Of Our (In The Sense Of The People That Devised The Dating System) Lord” and not “Year of Your Lord”.
There is more conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism than ther is between Christianity and Buddhism. It is definitely possible to be both because Buddhism has no necessary doctrine. Some iterations of it have more religious trappings than others, but strictly speaking, Buddhism isn’t even a religion at all. It’s just mental exercise. Being Christian and practicing, for instance, Zen meditation (which I practice myself as a raving atheist) is akin to being a Christian and practicing yoga. You don’t have to believe anything contradictory.