if the calandar is based on the supposed birth of Christ...

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2003-12-31 11:02pm

Setzer wrote:"Common Era" never made sense to me.
What do they mean by common? If they mean commonly experienced by people, then 1986 was 1 CE for me and Mom, because it's the first era we had in common, so to speak.

What the hell is this "Common Era"? I've never heard it used before.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-12-31 11:12pm

It's common era, because it is the most frequently used dating system. As in it's commonly used.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2003-12-31 11:15pm

It's the most politically correct system.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-12-31 11:17pm

Well, it's also a good reminder that all history isn't the history of Christiandom.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-12-31 11:20pm

Bob McDob wrote:As I understand, the AD system is a few years off, as well.

Correct, we're at least four years off due to a miscalculation on the part of Dionysius. (Jesus's birth would have occured c. BCE 4 or earlier).

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2003-12-31 11:20pm

No, but the western world was shaped by it.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-12-31 11:53pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:No, but the western world was shaped by it.

Not the point.

The United States has had significant impact in shaping the Western World. Should the calender be retuned to take that into account? Or does that take a couple hundred years.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-01-01 01:02am

Plus CE gives us an exact dating system, not a dating system based around the birth of a jewish cult's demigod, which if he ever existed at all, is in alot of doubt anyway(lambs in december? wtf?).

My question is: is there a year 0 in the CE dating system? I heard there wasn't in the BC/AD system.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-01-01 01:06am

CE is just changing the letters. It's the same years. And most scholars agree that Jesus was born around July. The calander was based on the year of his birth, not the day.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-01 01:07am

Rye wrote:Plus CE gives us an exact dating system, not a dating system based around the birth of a jewish cult's demigod, which if he ever existed at all, is in alot of doubt anyway(lambs in december? wtf?).

My question is: is there a year 0 in the CE dating system? I heard there wasn't in the BC/AD system.

The BCE/CE is the BC/AD system, just given a different name. There is no year zero.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-01 01:17am

Who really cares if its BC/AD or BCE/CE anyway? They're identical in form and function; the whole thing is just arguing semantics. *Grumbles about stupid political correctness.*

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-01-01 02:17am

Again, more reason to use the Roman dates. Or even better, French Republic calendrics!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-01 07:05am

Rogue 9 wrote: Who really cares if its BC/AD or BCE/CE anyway? They're identical in form and function; the whole thing is just arguing semantics. *Grumbles about stupid political correctness.*

Exactly. We should all go back to going by the year that Buddha was born. Like good Buddhists.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-01 12:11pm

You're not going to bait me that way. Basing the calendar off of Buddha's birth would not be just a name change. It would require overhauling the entire date system. Therefore, that is not just arguing semantics.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-01 12:20pm

If we're going to completely overhaul the calendar system, then we may as well base it off something that is absolute. The creation of the Solar System would be a good point, if we could pinpoint its date exactly. Failing that, I'd say base it on something else -- like the Crab Nebula supernova, which was observed on July 4, 1054.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2004-01-01 12:22pm

I like the callender the way it is. It works, it's ain't broke so don't try and fix it. Also my liver couldn't handle another millenium.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-01-01 12:31pm

Rogue 9 wrote: Who really cares if its BC/AD or BCE/CE anyway? They're identical in form and function; the whole thing is just arguing semantics. *Grumbles about stupid political correctness.*

I don't want to be dominated by a 2000 year old dead jew for one.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-01 05:07pm

Rye wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: Who really cares if its BC/AD or BCE/CE anyway? They're identical in form and function; the whole thing is just arguing semantics. *Grumbles about stupid political correctness.*
I don't want to be dominated by a 2000 year old dead jew for one.

Even you must recognize that the BCE/CE calendar is the BC/AD one, just with a different name. Secondly, you're hardly being "dominated."

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-01 05:13pm

Rogue 9 wrote:You're not going to bait me that way. Basing the calendar off of Buddha's birth would not be just a name change. It would require overhauling the entire date system. Therefore, that is not just arguing semantics.

So? Why should we be forced to follow a system based on the birth of one religious figure as opposed to another?

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-01-01 05:15pm

Because the one based on Jesues is in widespread use. It would require massive changes in many areas to convert it to something else.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-01-01 05:18pm

phongn wrote:
Rye wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: Who really cares if its BC/AD or BCE/CE anyway? They're identical in form and function; the whole thing is just arguing semantics. *Grumbles about stupid political correctness.*
I don't want to be dominated by a 2000 year old dead jew for one.
Even you must recognize that the BCE/CE calendar is the BC/AD one, just with a different name. Secondly, you're hardly being "dominated."

Stop oppressing me!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-01 05:31pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Because the one based on Jesues is in widespread use. It would require massive changes in many areas to convert it to something else.

So? That's why CE is used. Because this is the system that is common. Needing to further compount that with the BC/AD system is pointless.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-01-01 05:37pm

CE just meant changing 2 letters. It's irritatin PC, but I'm not advocating changing it back. That means more pointless legislation. I would argue that the dates themselves need to be left alone.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-01 05:38pm

neoolong wrote:
StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Because the one based on Jesues is in widespread use. It would require massive changes in many areas to convert it to something else.
So? That's why CE is used. Because this is the system that is common. Needing to further compount that with the BC/AD system is pointless.

Well, the thing doing the compounding is the CE system, as BC/AD was there first. I really don't care. I just wonder what all the fuss is about.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-01 05:42pm

Political correctness. IIRC it was created for thelogical discussions since Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have their own dating systems.