Oleg Bach Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Does anyone ever wonder where the God hating acedemics got the authority to suddenly change our measurement of time and remove BC from the books and insert BC with the E addition? This is the most powerful attack against what created civil society and attempts to put the power in the tiny soft hands of the egg heads who assume they know what is best for humantity. It is amusing that they were cowardly when they kept the traditional 2000 year old BC format..it's actually quite deceptive to have kept the same set of letters ---kind of conditioning the next generation to some sort of smooth transition...Why did they not just use a new set of letters like BTL - before bacon and tomatoe and lettuce? Quote
ToadBrother Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Does anyone ever wonder where the God hating acedemics got the authority to suddenly change our measurement of time and remove BC from the books and insert BC with the E addition? This is the most powerful attack against what created civil society and attempts to put the power in the tiny soft hands of the egg heads who assume they know what is best for humantity. It is amusing that they were cowardly when they kept the traditional 2000 year old BC format..it's actually quite deceptive to have kept the same set of letters ---kind of conditioning the next generation to some sort of smooth transition...Why did they not just use a new set of letters like BTL - before bacon and tomatoe and lettuce? Because, from everything we can figure out, Christ was in fact born around three years before the Anno Domini calender begins. Blame the Venerable Bede, not historians and scholars, who simply want a dating system that is consistent. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Posted December 30, 2009 Because, from everything we can figure out, Christ was in fact born around three years before the Anno Domini calender begins. Blame the Venerable Bede, not historians and scholars, who simply want a dating system that is consistent. Whats a few days or years when it comes to dealing with a couple of thousand years? Nawh I'm not going for the nice explaination that you provide. I believe that this is an attack by secularist scholars that want to rid the idea of time keeping of religion... Kind of like the seperation of time and church. Those that simply want a dating system that is consistent - if asked privately don't like some much attention paid to one founding father of western society - what's next...getting rid of males as heads of families and maybe hyphenating surnames? ooooops - guess I am to late to stop that one? Quote
ToadBrother Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Whats a few days or years when it comes to dealing with a couple of thousand years? Nawh I'm not going for the nice explaination that you provide. I believe that this is an attack by secularist scholars that want to rid the idea of time keeping of religion... Kind of like the seperation of time and church. Those that simply want a dating system that is consistent - if asked privately don't like some much attention paid to one founding father of western society - what's next...getting rid of males as heads of families and maybe hyphenating surnames? ooooops - guess I am to late to stop that one? Maybe accuracy in dating means nothing to you. As you seem pretty damned ignorant, it wouldn't surprise me, but for some disciplines, precise dating is rather important. Just because it's pointless to you doesn't mean it's pointless to everyone. I mean, just because your capacity to grasp even basic logic seems permanently hampered doesn't mean basic logic is pointless. Not everyone wants to live in a fog of prejudice and stupidity like you. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Posted December 30, 2009 Maybe accuracy in dating means nothing to you. As you seem pretty damned ignorant, it wouldn't surprise me, but for some disciplines, precise dating is rather important. Just because it's pointless to you doesn't mean it's pointless to everyone. I mean, just because your capacity to grasp even basic logic seems permanently hampered doesn't mean basic logic is pointless. Not everyone wants to live in a fog of prejudice and stupidity like you. So let this poor and intentionally ignorant old man of great prejudice gets this right - for 2000 years the BC method of dating worked out just fine for millions and millions of common people and scholars - then suddenly a few acedemics take it upon themselves to change all that and make it better...proving at least 1000 million people over the ages as wrong and like me - pointless and stupid - I guess you are right... a couple of bearded god haters living like parasites with their little beards and wire rim glasses decided during their spare time to change a 2000 year tradition...and doing this behind the backs of the public - at public expense - the average person is not even aware of this change...I call that shifty and manipulative - I would say that's pretty accurate on my part, would you not? Quote
Oleg Bach Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Posted December 30, 2009 REVISIONISM...is a very accurate word. Imagine in 20 years that there will be a whole new population of persons who will not even know that BC or before Christ system ever existed. That is very unfair and as I mentioned shifty and does smack of an anti-Christism if I ever saw on before. Why did these new upstart scholars simply not adjust the date and right the inaccuracy the proper way instead of pushing Jesus off the map completely? It really bothers me and I can see their ugly little faces..as I type - sipping wine and changing the world - I bet the guys who got this idea were gay..Now I just made myself laugh...little Jesus hating gay professors conspiring.... Quote
bloodyminded Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) REVISIONISM...is a very accurate word. Imagine in 20 years that there will be a whole new population of persons who will not even know that BC or before Christ system ever existed. That is very unfair and as I mentioned shifty and does smack of an anti-Christism if I ever saw on before. Why did these new upstart scholars simply not adjust the date and right the inaccuracy the proper way instead of pushing Jesus off the map completely? It really bothers me and I can see their ugly little faces..as I type - sipping wine and changing the world - I bet the guys who got this idea were gay..Now I just made myself laugh...little Jesus hating gay professors conspiring.... When Revisionism is based on factual dating, it is not a terrible thing. Edited December 30, 2009 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Shwa Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Does anyone ever wonder where the God hating acedemics got the authority to suddenly change our measurement of time and remove BC from the books and insert BC with the E addition? Actually it has very little to do with "God hating" anyone and more to do with a chronological structure that is standardized for the world - most of whom have nothing in common with "Christ." Even BCE is starting to lose favour and is being replaced with Before Present - BP - which refers to dates roughly before Jan 1, 1950. The BP method of expressing dates is used fairly extensively in science. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 perhaps we should leave the Christianity saving to Mr Canada Oleg... mmmmmmmmmmk? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
GostHacked Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Why can't we have other era's then that include other religious icons. Like BB, Before budah, or BM, before Mohammed, or ,. or or or ... maybe we should stick with a BR, Before Religion. Or perhaps Titan AE, After Earth .. wait .. sorry that was a movie, AE, After Enlightenment, yeah that's the ticket. Quote
ToadBrother Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) So let this poor and intentionally ignorant old man of great prejudice gets this right - for 2000 years the BC method of dating worked out just fine for millions and millions of common people and scholars The AD system didn't even come into common use until the 6th or 7th century (largely popularized by the Venerable Bede). Prior to that, the old Roman calendar had been in use. Is there any subject that you actually know anything about? - then suddenly a few acedemics take it upon themselves to change all that and make it better...proving at least 1000 million people over the ages as wrong and like me - pointless and stupid - I guess you are right... a couple of bearded god haters living like parasites with their little beards and wire rim glasses decided during their spare time to change a 2000 year tradition...and doing this behind the backs of the public - at public expense - the average person is not even aware of this change...I call that shifty and manipulative - I would say that's pretty accurate on my part, would you not? You have no idea what you're talking about. You're ignorant of history. Edited December 30, 2009 by ToadBrother Quote
M.Dancer Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 What makes the common era "common"? Why pick lets say, 1 AD ad the beginning of the Common Era.... I don't want to sound like Mr. Canada....but lets admit the truth. A.D means Annno Domini (B.C. before Christ) and the only reason there are rumblings is those who are not from the Xtian tradition yet feel compeled to use our calendar might feel offended. I say oif they don't like it they are free to use another calendar....I recommend the roman... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_urbe_condita Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 Rachel Welch in.... One Million Years BCE Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
BubberMiley Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 I say oif they don't like it they are free to use another calendar....I recommend the roman... They are also free to use the existing calendar but to say "BCE" instead of "BC." That's what freedom is. You are also free to say "BC." Hurray for everyone. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
M.Dancer Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 They are also free to use the existing calendar but to say "BCE" instead of "BC." That's what freedom is. You are also free to say "BC." Hurray for everyone. Sure they are...but the fact remains the basis for the calendar is year one...and year one isn't an arbitrary point in time. The fear of acknowledging that point....is what fuels the C.E and B.C.E nonesense. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
BubberMiley Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 The fear of acknowledging that point....is what fuels the C.E and B.C.E nonesense. To you it may be a fear but to everyone else it's a preference. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Oleg Bach Posted December 31, 2009 Author Report Posted December 31, 2009 OKAY ALL YOU MODERNIST... I submit! And now I am going down to city hall and get a marriage licence for me and the wifes Jack Russell. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 This is the most powerful attack against what created civil societyHow does the "Common Era" attack the Sumerians and Greeks? Quote
cybercoma Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 What makes the common era "common"? Why pick lets say, 1 AD ad the beginning of the Common Era.... I don't want to sound like Mr. Canada....but lets admit the truth. A.D means Annno Domini (B.C. before Christ) and the only reason there are rumblings is those who are not from the Xtian tradition yet feel compeled to use our calendar might feel offended. I say oif they don't like it they are free to use another calendar....I recommend the roman... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_urbe_condita Oh, what a wonderful idea. Everyone can have their own personal calender. That won't be at all confusing. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 OKAY ALL YOU MODERNIST... I submit! And now I am going down to city hall and get a marriage licence for me and the wifes Jack Russell. Be sure to bring a pet psychic with you, so you can show that you have the dog's consent. You wouldn't want to be a dog rapist. Quote
ToadBrother Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 What makes the common era "common"? Why pick lets say, 1 AD ad the beginning of the Common Era.... I don't want to sound like Mr. Canada....but lets admit the truth. A.D means Annno Domini (B.C. before Christ) and the only reason there are rumblings is those who are not from the Xtian tradition yet feel compeled to use our calendar might feel offended. I say oif they don't like it they are free to use another calendar....I recommend the roman... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_urbe_condita There are a numnber of problems with the Anno Domini calendar. IN part, yes, it's because it's overtly Christian in dating, and much of the world used other dating systems. But more importantly, it was buggered up. 1 AD was not the birth of Christ. Far more likely the date was 3 BC. By shifting to "Common Era" we undo an inaccuracy that has existed in the AD system since Dionysius Exiguus invented it. But Christendom was quite happy to use the older Roman calendar well into the 8th century, with the Venerable Bede being the popularizer. Quote
M.Dancer Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 But Christendom was quite happy to use the older Roman calendar well into the 8th century, with the Venerable Bede being the popularizer. The 13 centuries of use have made the error of 3 years irrelevant. It is not the accuracy of pinpointing Christ's birth that makes B.C or A.D noteworthy. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ToadBrother Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 The 13 centuries of use have made the error of 3 years irrelevant. It is not the accuracy of pinpointing Christ's birth that makes B.C or A.D noteworthy. Not much makes it noteworthy. It's pegged at the wrong date. Yes, it was popularized in the 8th century, but surely researchers are quite free to use any dating system they want, and in general, "Christian era" only really refers for much of its history to a rather small chunk of the population of the planet. Quote
bloodyminded Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 Not much makes it noteworthy. It's pegged at the wrong date. Yes, it was popularized in the 8th century, but surely researchers are quite free to use any dating system they want, and in general, "Christian era" only really refers for much of its history to a rather small chunk of the population of the planet. I'm not quite sure what the objection to the changes are. If they're based on an affinity for Christianity, that's a piss-poor argument. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
ToadBrother Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 I'm not quite sure what the objection to the changes are. If they're based on an affinity for Christianity, that's a piss-poor argument. It's the attempt to enforce religious tradition on scholarly and scientific fields. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.