Before The Common Era.

[bloodyminded]

It's the attempt to enforce religious tradition on scholarly and scientific fields.

Then it should be a no-brainer. Though ironically, no brains disallows no-brainers.

[BubberMiley]

It's also to promote the persecution complex some christians enjoy these days. Now that xmas is over, they can't whine about the "war on xmas" anymore.

[kimmy]

It's also to promote the persecution complex some christians enjoy these days. Now that xmas is over, they can't whine about the "war on xmas" anymore.

I think the question on everyone's mind right now, Bubber, is why do you hate Baby Jeeeezus so much?

-k

[Shwa]

Then it should be a no-brainer. Though ironically, no brains disallows no-brainers.

[chuck schmidt]

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.

Agreed. The motives are an anti-God secularism no matter how they try to spin it. I say "anti-God" not "anti-religion" for a reason. Secularism itself is a form of religion. God himself does not forbid this. He gave us freedom of choice and a keen and inquisitive mind. Lack of belief in Him does not necessarily deny us acceptance by God just because we use what He gave us to come to a conclusion out of sync with other people. I believe that He looks at the whole package.

There are reasons to support the BC/BCE choice the same as there are reasons to decry it. Personally I doubt that the portion of the world that is non-Christian, non-Islamic and non-Judaic (the three major faiths which have the Bible as their source) are going to love us more or less because we re-name our calendar. Especially if they think we continue to hurt them. I also suspect that most people will accept the spin at face value and just carry on. Out of any group there will be differing beliefs as to what and why, with most people just seeing it as more small "p" politics. Personally I find it aggravating and will continue to refer to "BC" and "AD". But hey, nowadays there are lots of things I find aggravating.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why is it only the non-religous seem to know what a religion is?

[chuck schmidt]

Why is it only the non-religous seem to know what a religion is?

What is non-religious? Wicki says that,

"

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,

especially when

[emphasis added]

considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

"

"Especially when" does not mean "only when". For example, Stephen Hawking disputes the existence of God in his book "A Short History of Time," but the book is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Join the club, Stephen Hawking. You are just one more of the millions who create their own personal religion. Like many, you chose to exclude God. In my opinion God gave you that option when He gave you a magnificent mind and total freedom of choice. Maybe that is why many people believe that God is a personal god to each and every person?

[Guest TrueMetis]

What is non-religious? Wicki says that,

"

A religion is a set of

beliefs

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,

especially when

[emphasis added]

considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

"

"Especially when" does not mean "only when". For example, Stephen Hawking disputes the existence of God in his book "A Short History of Time," but the book is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Join the club, Stephen Hawking. You are just one more of the millions who create their own personal religion. Like many, you chose to exclude God. In my opinion God gave you that option when He gave you a magnificent mind and total freedom of choice. Maybe that is why many people believe that God is a personal god to each and every person?

Key word there. If you believe in something you accept it without evidence. So saying "secularism" is a religon is like saying evolution or atheism is a religion. Hawkings book is a a book about cosmology and mathematics not belief it is firmly grounded in science.

I have no religion.

Edited January 17, 2010 by TrueMetis

[chuck schmidt]

I have no religion.

If you possess absolutely no belief concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe (ie. of life), why do you post here and explore the meaning of religion? Is it that you have not yet settled on a final determination so you are exploring?

[Guest TrueMetis]

If you possess absolutely no belief concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe (ie. of life), why do you post here and explore the meaning of religion? Is it that you have not yet settled on a final determination so you are exploring?

What does religion have to do with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe?

Edited January 17, 2010 by TrueMetis

[chuck schmidt]

What does religion have to do with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe?

The word "religion" is just defined that way.

Here are some definitions from a different site:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

—Idiom

9. get religion, Informal.

a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.

b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

Are you seeking a discussion of "gods" or God?

[Michael Hardner]

But the question is whether he has a "belief" about these things. If he simply doesn't know, and keeps an open mind, then he has no "belief".

[Guest TrueMetis]

The word "religion" is just defined that way.

Here are some definitions from a different site:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

The key words in most of those definitions are faith of belief. (which are basiacally the same thing) I try never to believe in anything.

And none of those have anything to do with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

[chuck schmidt]

But the question is whether he has a "belief" about these things. If he simply doesn't know, and keeps an open mind, then he has no "belief".

According to Scripture (source forgotten) the knowledge of both God and of the difference between right and wrong is within all of us. Ergo the belief is there. Beside, you're playing semantics. If you know enough to wonder, you have an opinion. Even if it is only that you want to know more.

[chuck schmidt]

And none of those have anything to do with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Indeed? Some people associate God with the creation of the universe, and many of them disagree on exactly what that means.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Indeed? Some people associate God with the creation of the universe, and many of them disagree on exactly what that means.

God != religion. Just ask the Deists I know.

[chuck schmidt]

I should ask people you know about issues on which you and I disagree? Next thing you'll say, "Trust me."

There is a manner in which I am able to agree with you in general terms. "Religions" as a human construct are often human institutions. As such their first duty and often the primary duty of their leaders is seen as their worldly survival. That is inconsistent with the duty to God as taught in the Bible. In that sense you are reasonable in expecting much from religion and perceiving that it falls short. Of course that depends on whether you are discussing the definition of religion or the issue of whether God exists. Which is it? Or are you just venting?

Edited January 18, 2010 by chuck schmidt

[GostHacked]

I should ask people you know about issues on which you and I disagree? Next thing you'll say, "Trust me."

There is a manner in which I am able to agree with you in general terms. "Religions" as a human construct are often human institutions. As such their first duty and often the primary duty of their leaders is seen as their worldly survival.

Even when you admit that religion is a fabrication of man, most still think that there is a god. And that should be personal and nothing else. Even within a religion, god is many things to many people. But if you are saying that religion is fabricated, it's not much of a stretch to say god is a fabrication of man as well.

That is inconsistent with the duty to God as taught in the Bible. In that sense you are reasonable in expecting much from religion and perceiving that it falls short. Of course that depends on whether you are discussing the definition of religion or the issue of whether God exists. Which is it? Or are you just venting?

Which came first God or religion?

[Michael Hardner]

According to Scripture (source forgotten) the knowledge of both God and of the difference between right and wrong is within all of us. Ergo the belief is there. Beside, you're playing semantics. If you know enough to wonder, you have an opinion. Even if it is only that you want to know more.

You can't use Scripture as evidence when discussing with a non-believer as they don't accept your source. An opinion is not the same as a belief. Opinions are often based on facts, and that's the key difference.

Agnosticism is not a belief, and not a religion. Atheism (when defined as non-belief in gods) is also not a belief.

[chuck schmidt]

... if you are saying that religion is fabricated, it's not much of a stretch to say god is a fabrication of man as well.

You can say that. It is logical. God and religion are not necessarily the same thing, so when the definitions are not mutually supportive or even when they are contradictory I can still believe in both.

Which came first God or religion?

Baby Huey?

[chuck schmidt]

You can't use Scripture as evidence when discussing with a non-believer as they don't accept your source. An opinion is not the same as a belief. Opinions are often based on facts, and that's the key difference.

Beliefs cannot be based on facts?

I cannot accept God as fact?

Methinks we disagree.

I can use scripture as evidence when discussing with a non-believer. The scripture quoted addresses directly the question of whether there is evidence to support the existence of God. You are free at that point to accept or reject the scripture. God has given you a whole Bible to present His evidence, and millions of people throughout history who accepted Him, rationalized Him, argued about Him and rejected Him. Your refutation is the spiritual equivalent of denying the theory of relativity then saying its no fair to argue from the teachings of Einstein.

All religions don't accept my God. "Religion" is a human construct, a word that has come to represent diverse meanings. I'm wondering if we are discussing to cross purposes, but in any event my personal belief system can divorce the concepts of "religion" and "God" from each other with great ease.

Agnosticism is not a belief, and not a religion. Atheism (when defined as non-belief in gods) is also not a belief.

I leave the definition of agnostic to you.

[ToadBrother]

I can use scripture as evidence when discussing with a non-believer. The scripture quoted addresses directly the question of whether there is evidence to support the existence of God. You are free at that point to accept or reject the scripture. God has given you a whole Bible to present His evidence, and millions of people throughout history who accepted Him, rationalized Him, argued about Him and rejected Him. Your refutation is the spiritual equivalent of denying the theory of relativity then saying its no fair to argue from the teachings of Einstein.

First you would have to demonstrate that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, otherwise you're just invoking a good deal of circular reasoning.

[GostHacked]

First you would have to demonstrate that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, otherwise you're just invoking a good deal of circular reasoning.

Not to mention the first oral versions of this bible before it was written. Even after it went through many revisions as time went on. To me the original meaning or true word of god is no longer represented by modern scripture.

[Michael Hardner]

Beliefs cannot be based on facts?

If something is based on fact, it's usually referred to as knowledge. I guess you could say "I believe that the moon exists." but why not say that you know it.

I cannot accept God as fact?

You can do whatever you like. If you accept God as fact, though, I will label your acceptance as a "belief in God".

I can use scripture as evidence when discussing with a non-believer. The scripture quoted addresses directly the question of whether there is evidence to support the existence of God. You are free at that point to accept or reject the scripture. God has given you a whole Bible to present His evidence, and millions of people throughout history who accepted Him, rationalized Him, argued about Him and rejected Him. Your refutation is the spiritual equivalent of denying the theory of relativity then saying its no fair to argue from the teachings of Einstein.

Yes, you may use scripture, just as I may use a Kiss album to convince you that Satan is your Lord. And we won't get anywhere unless we agree on sources that we can cite as evidence.

Since this board is about discussion, and not just posting things that others don't accept, I think it's better to use sources that we can all agree on, more or less.

All religions don't accept my God. "Religion" is a human construct, a word that has come to represent diverse meanings. I'm wondering if we are discussing to cross purposes, but in any event my personal belief system can divorce the concepts of "religion" and "God" from each other with great ease.

I leave the definition of agnostic to you.

I said "gods" in lower case. As in "believe in gods" or "belief in spirits". Absence of such beliefs is an absence of religion, I think. And I think most people would agree that those with no religion, have no religion.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Beliefs cannot be based on facts?

No because by their very definition a belief is acceptance without evidence. If you have facts to back something up it is no longer a belief.