So I should view Christianity as an expansionist empire of decadence ruled by a despot?
In that case, I’ll side with the Huns, thanks.
Well, quite. I was just saying that the Church history journals and whatnot were not angered by the changing standard.
Whenever someone whips out the CE/BCE shit I always pretend not to understand them. Then I make them laboriously explain the terms and their reasons for using them, while I nod and look like a new day is dawning in my intellectual word. But then I suddenly chuckle and explain that I knew what they meant but I just wanted to make them amuse me with their attempted political consciousness raising through socio-historical word fetishism. Dance, monkeyboy, dance.
I figure one good dose of obnoxious semantic skullfuckery deserves another.
I prefer CE to AD because I’ve had too many fucknuggets inform me that “AD stands for after death.”
The most recent offender was a teacher. :smack: We argued with her for a solid ten minutes, but she couldn’t be dissuaded. Unreal.
Now they’re using “BP” (Before Present), which is actually quite convenient, but I had to dig around before I found the meaning to it.
When using abbreviations in articles, the author should explain their meaning at the outset, then they can use it all they want.
You must have a dreadfully boring life.
I could be wrong, but I think ‘BP’ is mostly used in archeology, where you’re talking about thousands to hundreds of millions of years ago, in which case the number of the current year hardly matters.
True, but fortunately I never have to wait long before some peddler of social trivialties stumbles into my little web of torment.
Yeah, you’re right. I was reading some Wiki articles about human migration and the Bering Sea land bridge and stuff.
But still, the writer of the article should include all information for the uninitiated, without causing him to search around.
Just a minor gripe.
Well, I’ve been enlightened today. I never knew what AD stood for, just assumed it meant “after” something, since somewhere along the way I picked up what BC meant.
That said, I like the new CE and BCE. See nothing wrong with “Common Era” and “Before Common Era”. Change the word common for christian if you like.
If anything, it’s simpler, and goes a long way towards fighting ignorance of those who never had a religious upbringing and never had to learn stuff like this.
Not to say that simple is always a better option…
I always aondered about this. Is it that much more work to use three letters, and just say, “ago?”
I know Catholics have no problem using BCE, so they don’t have to say “Christ was born six years before the birth of Christ.”
Good. Use their calendar, then, and you’ll be happy.
Meanwhile, in between oppressing people who want to be able to write dates without referring to my Lord as their Lord, I’ll get on with having to use day and month names that refer to the sun, the moon, four Norse gods, seven other pagan gods, and two Caesars. That seems to provoke no-one’s ire.
And they’re some of the boring Norse gods, too! 
Well, bastard sons of an Asa and a giantess just have to do the best they can, I guess. 
Another ancient historian who uses BCE and CE. It just makes more sense to be not referring to the ‘Lord’ all over the place, and besides, students never get the right placement of A.D. - which, as noted, is placed before the year.
In general, I think stealth-Latin is a bad thing. It gets misunderstood and misused. I think many of the next generation of people who actually publish using these terms (ie, ancient historians) are using BCE and CE, and I’ve never heard any historians arguing about it. So maybe those of you who are getting all het up should question why it’s such a big deal to you.
It might be interesting to know what proportion of people in the world are from culture/linguistic groups that do not date from (more or less) the birth of Jesus, or do not call days or months after “the sun, the moon, four Norse gods, seven other pagan gods, and two Caesars.”
The Jewish/Israeli calendar does not date from Jesus, and days of the week are numbered.
I’m not at all sure that “Common Era” (as opposed to “Christian Era”) helps if a peron’s goal is to squeeze out Christ from the picture. At some point, you still have to explain why the Western calendar’s common era began 2000 years ago. Failure to mention Christ at that point would constitute intellectual dishonesty, and no one here is going to tolerate that.
I should think not.
One of the better reasons for using BC/BCE (whether you want the C to stand for “common” or “Christian” doesn’t matter to me) is that the dating of the birth of Jesus is OFF by at least four years in the Christian dating convention. Jesus was not actually born in AD 1 but had to have been born in 4 BC or earlier. Why should historians be required to rely on a historical ERROR to be the nominal centerpiece for their dating convention?
In addition to that, it’s also kind of Christo-centric and insensitive to expect Jewish people to accept th title of “Christ” in reference to Jesus. “Christ” means “Messiah” in Greek. From the Jewish perspective, the Messiah has not yet revealed himself so it would be kind of a dick move to expect them to tacitly accept Jesus as the Messiah every time they want to date something.
Let’s also make it clear that no one is stopping any Christians or historians from using the Christian convention if they want to, so there isn’t any reason for them to get sniffy about what someone else chooses to do.
If you’re a history buff then why would you be content to accept a system based on a historical error?