Re: Didn't Know This Was Controversial - Schools Get Rid of BC and AD
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:17 am
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Common era means the same as AD , but with one difference , namely : common era is an arrogant imprecise statement.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:25 pm One way of looking at it would be to interpret the evidently deeply offended religious "conservatives" as an indication that the BC/AD label did indeed serve an ideological agenda and therefore should indeed be banished.
Certainly not. Christ was born in 4 before Christ was born in 4 before Christ. So AD began in 4 before Christ. Or should we simply admit that the AD/BC thingy is just erroneous and we fix it...iskander wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:35 amCommon era means the same as AD , but with one difference , namely : common era is an arrogant imprecise statement.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:25 pm One way of looking at it would be to interpret the evidently deeply offended religious "conservatives" as an indication that the BC/AD label did indeed serve an ideological agenda and therefore should indeed be banished.
Well, that's the theory, but it is simply wrong. Herod was alive when Christ was born. Herod died 4 years before the BC/AD change over. BCE/CE simply doesn't entail the error.
That is plain nonsense.
Contrary reactions to the christian biased terms BC & AD are certainly not odd. The rest of the world mainly uses the western dating convention. This is because of the one time hegemony of the west, which in turn carried christian zeal to the rest of the world. We are a somewhat more enlightened world in respect to oecumenical issues. Using BC/AD purveys christian values in a multi-religious and non-religious world. BCE/CE does not. It is neutral terminology which causes no problems to anyone across the globe who accepts that there are other points of view than a dead christian hegemony.
The site is confessional. It doesn't set out to be meaningful to anyone outside the faith it supports. The views expressed in the page you linked to are not based on Genesis but on much later eisegesis.iskander wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:05 am
" In the century following the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), certain Jewish scholars took the date 3761/3760 BC and assigned it to the time described in Genesis 1 and 2. Thus, the Jews preserved the correct date for calendar calculation but mistakenly associated it with Creation week."
https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseactio ... lendar.htm
This still doesn't make it "common to all humanity". My Chinese and my Indian friends wouldn't be the only ones to deny that. The only calendar that is in common use, even if only for official business, is the Christian one.iskander wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:05 am" In the century following the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), certain Jewish scholars took the date 3761/3760 BC and assigned it to the time described in Genesis 1 and 2. Thus, the Jews preserved the correct date for calendar calculation but mistakenly associated it with Creation week."
https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseactio ... lendar.htm
the calendar of different cultures begin on a date of significance to a particular culture and only to them. Some calendars have starting dates which seem to be earlier than others. The Jewish calendar is associated by some with the creation of the world and hence ' common era' includes the eras of any other culture. Common era is an arrogant and imprecise statementUlan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:56 amThis still doesn't make it "common to all humanity". My Chinese and my Indian friends wouldn't be the only ones to deny that. The only calendar that is in common use, even if only for official business, is the Christian one.iskander wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:05 am" In the century following the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), certain Jewish scholars took the date 3761/3760 BC and assigned it to the time described in Genesis 1 and 2. Thus, the Jews preserved the correct date for calendar calculation but mistakenly associated it with Creation week."
https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseactio ... lendar.htm
To be honest, I thought you were making some kind of joke that I didn't get. It looks as if you were serious
It's definitely not imprecise, and I do not necessarily see any arrogance behind the statement. It's the common calendar that is used in business and science all over the world. It's a de facto standard, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.