You know damn well what I meant, Mr. Context.
But does a string of numbers such as “2007” or “1998” or “1846” automatically serve as reminders of Christianity to you, or only when you’re specifically thinking about the connection?
Sorry, I posted before I meant to, and then went back and edited. No, the year by itself doesn’t.
Ah, OK. Thanks for clarifying.
BTW, I do think it could possibly be objectively proven, by a sufficiently awesomely-designed psychological survey. It’d be tough, though.
That is not the reason for modifying the convention, though, so there is no reason to imply that “a goal to squeeze out Christ” is any motivation for those who use it.
Anno Domini measures from ( the erroneously calculated) BIRTH of Jesus, not his death, moron.
You’d have to have some way of showing thought associations, like that test you can take on the internet where you look at faces & hit “good” or “bad.” I definitely think it would be tough.
The motivation behind the (completely voluntary) modification had no goal whatsoever of “squeezing out Christ.”
Consideration for non-Christians was only half the point. The other was that the original convention was technically WRONG about where it located its keystone event. “Christian Era” is historically accurate. To say that Jesus was was born in 1 AD is not.
Once more, there is a difference between asking others to acknowledge “Christ” as a legitimate title for Jesus (or to acknowledge Jesus as “Lord”) and making reference to the mere existence and significance of Christianity as a religion.
The thing is, many non-Christians DO prefer “Christian Era.” as opposed to “Common.” I prefer “Christian Era” myself. I think it’s accurate and it better defines the significance of the era. There’s nothing objectionable about it. I actually think it’s a pretty good compromise.
It’s nothing you “have” to do. There is no movement by anyone to prevent Christians from using the old convention. BCE/CE is a completely voluntary option. No one has told any Christian that they “can’t refer to Christ.”
Did you see the smiley face, Diogenes?
ETA: (Although, I think it academic circles, it is much more frowned upon to use BC/AD than you are letting on.)
It’s not common but I’ve seen it from some more old school types and it’s accepted with good grace. I’ve never heard anyone complain about some else using the convention in or out of academia. It’s more about not wanting to have to use it themselves.
What academic circles would those be? I’d say most of us younger folks are in the habit of using BCE/CE, but a lot of older people aren’t and…no one cares. Really.
Edited to add: Actually, I bet some journals have conventions. But they tell you where to put your commas, too.
That’s interesting that you guys say that younger academics use it, but older ones don’t. The only academics I know are my mother and her friends (all age 65+…mom is 70), and they seem to use the BC/BCE convention.
But, whatever…I don’t personally run in academic circles, so that’s just one anecdote.
Has somebody hacked your account? You’re a good deal smarter than this.
a) I am an atheist (and re: my “cultural limitations” I was raised in the Hindu tradition)
b) I am quite aware, dear, that the Gregorian calendar is pretty much universal. The point remains that its frame of reference - the birth of Christ (yes, I know they got it wrong, those of you who wanted to point that out - read the OP more carefully) - is an entirely Christian one.
We are here to fight ignorance, not to work around it, you know.
Strictly speaking, “anno domini” would be “year of (the) lord”. No possessive at all.
Probably since otherwise they’d be pretending that AD 1 was arbitrarily chosen and hope nobody fact-checked?
It still refers specifically to Jesus, who, as far as I’m concerned is neither. “my lord,” nor “the lord,” nor even “a lord.” I have no lord.
But it isn’t “chosen,” it’s inherited. We’re stuck with it. It would be impractical to try to move the date, so the next best thing is to remove the error from the equation and recognize the system as that which is “commony” used – even to recognize that it measures approximately enough from the advent of the "Christian Era – without perputuating a historical error and without asking non-Christians to apply the titles “Messiah” and “Lord” to a man they believe was neither.
I have some professors who use it and some who do not. Probably about 50/50. I tailor my papers accordingly.
Well you haven’t got a god either, but I haven’t heard you referring to “you know, that nonexistent supreme being” lately…
No ethical college prof would penalize a student for not using his/her preferred convention in a paper, nor would they reward a student for using it. I had profs who used the old convention and profs who used the new one but I never had any who gave a rat’s ass what a student used in a paper.
Professors (and TAs) are only human. I’d rather be safe than sorry.
ETA: although when the issue of “which convention should I use?” has come up, usually the professor says, “I don’t care - just be consistent.”