NationStates Jolt Archive

A.D, despite common belief, does not stand for "After Death." It's latin. "Anno Domini," the Year of Our Lord. This term, for nearly two thousand years, was used to define the date. However, at the end of the twentieth century, PC activists dubbed this Christian system to be politically incorrect and ordered it to be replaced with C.E., or "Common Era." The year has stayed the same.

Why change?

Like it or not, we are running on a Christian solar calendar system implemented by the Catholic church.

A.D, despite common belief, does not stand for "After Death." It's latin. "Anno Domini," the Year of Our Lord. This term, for nearly two thousand years, was used to define the date. However, at the end of the twentieth century, PC activists dubbed this Christian system to be politically incorrect and ordered it to be replaced with C.E., or "Common Era." The year has stayed the same.

Why change?

Like it or not, we are running on a Christian solar calendar system implemented by the Catholic church.
Which is off by either 5 or 13 years (can't remember which)

Who thought AD meant 'After Death'?

The Catholic Church also implemented alms and stuff, is that bad?

Of course it should stay AD. It is the christian calendar.
If we were to have a universal calendar, it should start now as year 1, or else start it from the beginning of human written history.

Which is off by either 5 or 13 years (can't remember which)
4 isn't it (iIrc Christ was born around 4BC)

or else start it from the beginning of human written history.
...good lucking figuring out that date...

Of course it should stay AD. It is the christian calendar.
If we were to have a universal calendar, it should start now as year 1, or else start it from the beginning of human written history.
When do you propose that started?

If a new tablet is found, it could mean the whole calendar would have to change, just to accomadate the new find.

Either way you look at it we start the calendar from the birth of Christ. THe AD and CE years are the same, are they not?

4 isn't it (iIrc Christ was born around 4BC)
No. Christ was born on 1 AD. However, sometime during the middle ages, or somewhere along in there, some monks messed up with counting the years and got us off by a few.

When do you propose that started?

If a new tablet is found, it could mean the whole calendar would have to change, just to accomadate the new find.

Not really its the same as the current calendar. It's off by a few years? who cares?

I don't know the exact date. Myabe could look at which culture is the oldest at the moment and start with the beginning as our beginning.
Or start now as the first year. So next year would be 1 C.E. (common era). Last year would then 1 P.E. (previous era).

Some points I'd like to make ....

1] Jews - as well as countless cultures - have never used "AD". By the Jewish calendar, it is the year 5764.

2] The current calendar isn't very Christian .... days of the week being named after Norse gods and all that. The Gregorian Calendar, which replaced the Julian Calendar, hasn't been in use for quite some time - ever since science proved that a day isn't exactly 24 hours nor is a year exactly 365 days.

3] Lunar calendars are invariably more accurate than solar calendars.

I'd go on ... but nah ...

No. Christ was born on 1 AD. However, sometime during the middle ages, or somewhere along in there, some monks messed up with counting the years and got us off by a few.
I distincly remember my Bible said that Christ was born 4BC. I'll google it to see who is right.

Also the Calendar has changed a few times. Although the most recent change (still going back a few centuries though), resulted in protests. Not because of tradition, or anything like that, but because the new calendar was 11 days shorter, and many felt that they wouldn't live as long (minus 11 days multipled by their remaining years).


::EDIT:: seems we were both right.

clicky (http://www.didyouknow.cd/xmas/Jesus.htm)

Either way you look at it we start the calendar from the birth of Christ. THe AD and CE years are the same, are they not?

Not really. Why would muslims see it as the same or Jews? As the calendar is reflective of christianity.
I don't believe these PC people have the right to change the christian system to make it friendlier to others. Make a new one fine. Not change it.

I distincly remember my Bible said that Christ was born 4BC. I'll google it to see who is right.

Also the Calendar has changed a few times. Although the most recent change (still going back a few centuries though), resulted in protests. Not because of tradition, or anything like that, but because the new calendar was 11 days shorter, and many felt that they wouldn't live as long (minus 11 days multipled by their remaining years).
err, heh...Oh well, doesn't matter, and I'm not going to take any "My bible said so" arguments. It doesn't matter either way.

err, heh...Oh well, doesn't matter, and I'm not going to take any "My bible said so" arguments. It doesn't matter either way.
seems we were both right.

clicky (http://www.didyouknow.cd/xmas/Jesus.htm)

You would think that people would have sorted all this out. One calendar for all!

Stay with AD. It was good for the Romans, its good for me :p

Not really its the same as the current calendar. It's off by a few years? who cares?

You also need to take into account that it is hard to accurately date the oldest fragments of writting

I don't know the exact date. Myabe could look at which culture is the oldest at the moment and start with the beginning as our beginning.
Or start now as the first year. So next year would be 1 C.E. (common era). Last year would then 1 P.E. (previous era).
Isn't the usual notation BCE (Before Common Era).

Personally, I don't think we need to chance the year 0.

Change the notations though if you want.

Stay with AD. It was good for the Romans, its good for me :p
Didn't the Romans date from the building of Rome?

Rather then the birth of Christ. AD is only Latin because that was the language of the Church.

Stay with AD. It was good for the Romans, its good for me :p
Actually, the Romans used a different system, the name of which eludes me at the moment. They based their year on the founding of Rome.

I really think it would be unlikely that the calendar system is going to change anytime soon. You'd have to completely change pretty much every history, social study, etc. book written since the middle ages. Besides, few people are really complaining about it, and I've never heard of anyone who has a real serious problem about it.

You also need to take into account that it is hard to accurately date the oldest fragments of writting


Isn't the usual notation BCE (Before Common Era).

Personally, I don't think we need to chance the year 0.

Change the notations though if you want.

BCE? ok just made up PE as an example. Does it really matter if we get the date wrong. Just start it from the current millenium then.
It is now 4CE everyone!!!!

I'm not saying the system has to change just if it does these hippy idiots need to make a new system and not simple make the christian system more PC for everyone else. Changing a name means nothing. Have to change the product itself.
GOD I HATE THOSE PC BASTARDS!

sorry don't like politically correct people. very annoying

In my classes for Social Studies teachers certification, we have been told to use B.C.E. and C.E.

The reason: A.D. is latin for "Year of our Lord", and it is very likely that we will be teaching students who are not of the Christian faith, and using a Christian based dating system is prejustice against people of other faiths, agnostics, and athiests.

I have had classes in college that use B.C.E. and C.E. in both the lectures and the textbooks. I see nothing wrong with it, really. Its not about being politically correct... its about being inclusive, and opening the students minds to different ideas.

Plus it is less likely to get you and the school sued, to be blunt... which is why a few of the schools around here have gone officially to BCE/CE as a part of the school policy.

A.D, despite common belief, does not stand for "After Death." It's latin. "Anno Domini," the Year of Our Lord. This term, for nearly two thousand years, was used to define the date. However, at the end of the twentieth century, PC activists dubbed this Christian system to be politically incorrect and ordered it to be replaced with C.E., or "Common Era." The year has stayed the same.

Why change?

Like it or not, we are running on a Christian solar calendar system implemented by the Catholic church.

I think it should change, but nobody will want it to. Everyone is used to A.D. and everyone will be all, "C.E.? What the heck does that mean?" It's kind of like when the U.S. thought of switching to the metric system, nobody went for it. All the kids in school right now, myself included, wish that we had grown up with the metric system. Where is the logic in the standard system? 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 5,280 feet to a mile? Where is the pattern there? Besides, if we just change it to C.E. the non-Christians will stop whining about it and be able to get on with their lives.

I distincly remember my Bible said that Christ was born 4BC. I'll google it to see who is right.

Also the Calendar has changed a few times. Although the most recent change (still going back a few centuries though), resulted in protests. Not because of tradition, or anything like that, but because the new calendar was 11 days shorter, and many felt that they wouldn't live as long (minus 11 days multipled by their remaining years).


::EDIT:: seems we were both right.

clicky (http://www.didyouknow.cd/xmas/Jesus.htm)
uh concept, have you realized now that it could NOT have been in the bible since when the bible was written they were using a different system for numbering years?

the whole PC thing on this seems silly to me. no reason to not call it AD. i find CE to be a bit pretentious.

no reason to change anything, its just a convenience to have the years stay the same as they have been (for us) for the past .... oh gee i dont know when they started using the julian calendar with christian referenced years.

How bout this:
0-500 A.D. = Roman Era / R.E.
501-1400 A.D. =Dark Ages / D.A.
1401-1600 A.D. = Age of Exploration / A.o.E.
1601-1900 A.D. = Imperial Age / I.A.
1901-1950 A.D. = Age of War / A.o.W.
1951-2000 A.D. = Nuclear Age / N.A.
2001-2050 A.D. = Age of Terror / A.o.T.
2051-2150 A.D. = Greater Age / G.A.
2151-2350 A.D. = Age of Reason / A.o.R.
2351-2500 A.D. = Black Ages / B.A.
2501-2550 A.D. = Age of Exodus / A.o.X.
2551-2700 A.D. = Wandering Age / W.A.
2701-2850 A.D. = Age of Rebuilding / A.o.R.
2851-2950 A.D. = Green Age / G.A.
2951-3000 A.D. = Final Era / F.E.
Jan. 1, 3001 A.D. = Day of Destruction D.o.D.

I think its idiotic. A couple of departments in college try to insist on CE and BCE, consequently my submissions make me look as if Im really stupid, red ink corrections on every page.
Whatever label we place on the dates, theyre being calculated from the same point (wrong point or not), so the essential meaning of the date doesnt really change.
I always thought of it like the way some parents teach teir kids words like peepee or whatever but treat the word penis as really offensive. Related to that I think the only reason that swear words or sexually explicit language is bad is that it rarely comes with a footnote explaing what it means, but thats a whole other discussion.

Is there any practical time to date a modern calendar? Maybe from a groundbreaking scientific discovery, ala; The Genetic Age, from Francis and Crick in '53(?)
Or from the foundation of the UN, or the World Court or something to represent the globalisation of the world?

On another note, did non-Christians celebrate the Millenium? I cant remember.

probably if they were in christian countries. But in their own? why?

I personally don't care. It doesn't affect.

Why does everyone really care anyway?

There seems to be a fair amount of misinformation here.

First, this was not thought up by "PC activists", neither is it a recent invention:

http://www.peacelink.de/keyword/Common_Era.php

The term "Common Era" has been in use since the late 19th century. Indeed, in its article on "Chronology", the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia uses the sentence: "Foremost among these [dating eras] is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar, or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living."

I heard from a pastor that it was in fact Christian theologians (Protestants, possibly?) who first came up with the idea of CE rather than AD.

This usage is preferred in much academic writing, particularly among historians, because it is perceived to have less ethnocentric bias; in particular, historians writing on non-Christian cultures, regardless of their own religious backgrounds, often feel it is inappropriate to date events with a Christian statement of faith. The near-universality of the A.D. era, however, makes the redesignated C.E. an attractive compromise. Some religious groups within Christianity also prefer C.E. dating; for example, Jehovah's Witnesses find the terms B.C. and A.D. objectionable because they imply that Christ was born in 1 B.C., whereas their theology requires a different date that they believe was prophesied in the Book of Daniel.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm

Groups in favor of CE/BCE:
The Ethic of Reciprocity (the Golden Rule) suggests that one should not intentionally cause pain to other humans. We should treat others as we would wish to be treated. Since only one out of every three humans on earth is a Christian, some theologians and other authors felt that non-religious, neutral terms like CE and BCE would be less offensive to the non-Christian majority. Forcing a Hindu, for example, to use AD and BC might be seen by some as coercing them to acknowledge the supremacy of the Christian God and of Jesus Christ.

Consider an analogous situation: the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. The most recent version of this pledge includes the phrase: "Under God." Imagine what a Wiccan (who believes in a God and a Goddess), or many Buddhists and strong Atheists ( who do not believe in the existence of God) feel when having to recite those words. Consider how a Christian would feel if the pledge read "Under Buddha" or "Under Allah."

Although CE and BCE were originally used mainly within theological writings, the terms are gradually receiving greater usage in secular writing, the media, and in the culture generally.

I find it quite amusing that you people are complaining about "PC activists" when this was in fact first used in theologial writings.

Furthermore, as Wikipedia points out, using AD is just as arbitrary as CE:

Two lesser known systems competed for a while with the A.D. system. The earliest was the Era of Martyrs, which numbered years from the accession of Diocletian in 284, who launched the last yet most severe persecution of Christians. This system is still used officially by the Coptic and Ethiopian churches. The other system was to date from the Death of Jesus Christ, which as early as Hippolytus and Tertullian was believed to have occurred in the consulate of the Gemini (A.D. 29), which appears in the occasional medieval manuscript.

GOD I HATE THOSE PC BASTARDS!

Calm the hell down! :rolleyes:

If you have a serious problem with CE and BCE, then don't use it. However, a lot of people, particularly in academic contexts, are probably going to want to know why, particularly since the whole idea is to be inclusive of EVERYBODY, including Christians.

As the calendar is reflective of christianity.

No, it's reflective of the MODERN era which many people use. They're just trying to make it not so Christianity-explicit.

I don't believe these PC people have the right to change the christian system to make it friendlier to others. Make a new one fine. Not change it.

What the hell do you care? Who says you have the right to push your Christ-o-centric calendar on everyone else? You have the right to use AD and BC until the cows come home. How does the calendar other people use AFFECT YOU?

Edit: More from religioustolerance.org:

Some statements against the use of CE and BCE, and possible rebuttals, are:

We have used BC and AD for over a thousand years. Why change?

The world is becoming more integrated financially, politically, socially and religiously. A universal calendar notation is needed. Recall that for every Christian there are about two non-Christians in the world. References to Christ and to the Judeo-Christian God offend many of the latter. A universal notation needs to be religiously neutral in order to be generally accepted. CE and BCE meet these requirements.

Why cannot non-Christians accept BC and AD?

Imagine how you would feel if the notation were BM and AM where "M" stood for Mithra -- a mythical god-man from Persia on whom the religion of Mithraism was created. (Mithraism was the main competitor to Christianity at one time). You would be offended, and distressed at having to acknowledge such a god-man every time that you wrote a date. Well, this is how many non-Christians feel about BC ("Before Christ") and AD ("Anno Domini" or "In the year of the Lord"). Consider Native Americans, many of whom associate Christ and Christianity with the genocide of their ancestors. Consider Jews, many of whom consider the Nazi Holocaust to have been founded on centuries of Christian Anti-semitism.

"...your writers seem to think it is either trendy to adopt it or foist it on the rest of us, or too gutless to stand up against it."

From what we have learned, theologians introduced the notation because they wanted to follow the Golden Rule and to avoid distressing the non-Christians of the world. Our web site adopted it for the same reason. A very large percentage -- almost a majority -- of our visitors are non-Christians. Using CE in place of AD actually takes a lot of "guts." We continually receive vicious, hate-filled Emails about our use of this notation.

If we are going to switch to BCE and CE, should we not be consistent and remove references to Pagan Gods and astronomical bodies from the names of the day of the week (Moon day, Tiw's day, Woden's day, Thor's day, Frig's Day, Saturn's day, Sun day)?

That certainly would be consistent. The names of the days of the week are based on Pagan names. In olden times, Quakers "did not use names for days of the week or months of the year since most of these names were derived from the names of pagan gods. A date such as August 19, 1748 will never be found. Rather it would be written as '19th da 6th mo 1748.' Sometimes this will be written as '6mo 19da 1748.' " 7,8

It would also be consistent to modify the names of the months, many of which are based on ancient Roman Paganism: Janus, a two-headed Roman God,
Februa, a Roman Pagan festival
Mars, a Roman God of war and fertility
Aprilis, the Roman Goddess of love
Maia, the Roman Goddess of the springtime
Juno, the Roman Great Mother Goddess
Julius Caesar, a Roman emperor
Augustus Caesar, another Roman emperor

September to December are based on the Roman numbers seven to ten.

Fortunately, very few people are aware of the etymology of the days of the week and months of the year. Thus, it does not create much offense. However, "Before Christ" and "In the name of the [Christian] Lord" is obviously based on a single religion.

Wait, if we put it as C.E., what will future humans call this era in the next era? They can't continue calling it C.E...

I think a new calendar would be great. The problem is picking a date to start from. Hmm...maybe the assassination of Julius Caesar? So now it's 2048? That might work, it's not too far off from the current system, but its based off of a nonreligious date. Also, Foxxinnia, where do you get 1/1/3001 for the end of the world?

4 isn't it (iIrc Christ was born around 4BC)

Jesus was born in 4 BCE. HE can't have been born four years before himself. :p

Change to C.E! That way we could set it up so each month had (more or less) equal days for simplicitys sake. Just let the clocks slide for an hour or too on the new year, you could also get rid of daylight saving at the same time. No one cares that the calendar was made up by christian monks, no one praises God because its thursday(in general) nor should they, look upon this more as a way of making refinements to the existing system.

Change to C.E! That way we could set it up so each month had (more or less) equal days for simplicitys sake. Just let the clocks slide for an hour or too on the new year, you could also get rid of daylight saving at the same time. No one cares that the calendar was made up by christian monks, no one praises God because its thursday(in general) nor should they, look upon this more as a way of making refinements to the existing system.


Actually, the reason for Daylights Savings was to give workers an extra hour of daylight to work with.

Forget 'pc' and all that garbage- I just think C.E. just makes more sense in a world where you don't live in a small little box isolated from the rest of the planet.

I know thats why. Stupid candles. Still, its a usless tool in this modern age, so why not cast it aside? It serves no purpose and I doubt it will again.

Yes, lets get rid of all those annoying Roman month names also. They are so offensive to everyone who is not roman or adheres to their belief structure.

I think we should invent a new time system. Metric time!

Now if there were only a way to change the earth to rotate around the sun every 100 days that would be perfect!

Yes, lets get rid of all those annoying Roman month names also. They are so offensive to everyone who is not roman or adheres to their belief structure.

I think we should invent a new time system. Metric time!

Now if there were only a way to change the earth to rotate around the sun every 100 days that would be perfect!

Just adjust the units of time so one day is 1/100 of a year.

Of course it should stay AD. It is the christian calendar.
If we were to have a universal calendar, it should start now as year 1, or else start it from the beginning of human written history.

I say use the Julian calendar.

The term C.E. acknowledges the fact that the "starting year" of the calendar was picked -rather on purpose or through agency of mistake- rather randomly. Calling the beginning year A.D. spreads disinformation.

Where is the logic in the standard system?
The Standard System uses a base 12 (12 Inches to a feet) rather than the 10 centimeters to a meter. Dividing by three, the standard system provides a clean number where the metric system produces a repeating decimal... thats one argument I've heard for the Standard System.

Anyway, it seems silly to change it to CE. Either way, its based on what was considered the beginning of Jesus's life, its not like changing two letters is going to change that.

Just adjust the units of time so one day is 1/100 of a year.
Umm, that would be fine exxept for that pesky night/day thing and the 365.4 days to go around the sun thing.

Anyway, it seems silly to change it to CE. Either way, its based on what was considered the beginning of Jesus's life, its not like changing two letters is going to change that.

So don't use it. And it's not like it's a new thing, that people are debating if they should snap their fingers and *wham*, have it all be changed: people have been using CE since the 19th century, and it's becoming more common. They obviously have their own beliefs about why it should be used; others have their own beliefs about why it shouldn't. So, why not let people use what they want, particularly since the counting system is the same?

So don't use it. And it's not like it's a new thing, that people are debating if they should snap their fingers and *wham*, have it all be changed: people have been using CE since the 19th century, and it's becoming more common. They obviously have their own beliefs about why it should be used; others have their own beliefs about why it shouldn't. So, why not let people use what they want, particularly since the counting system is the same?
I'd agree with letting people use what they want and not forcing anything on anyone...

Time is bunk, anyway. Setting an arbitrary value to a non-linear system is nothing but a headache.

We should go back to the lunar cycle.

Then, not just american indians could say, "It has been many moons since..."

I'm with the CE/BCE way of noting it.

Not being a Christian it'd be kinda silly to say it was 'the year of our lord,' especially if the common dating doesn't even correspond to what it's supposed to.

The notions of a new dating scheme are interesting, though. If, probably, nightmarishly impractical from most standpoints. Picking an event to measure time by would be interesting, indeed. But there's a *lotta* dated information out there.

I feel that it doesn't really matter, I have never met anybody who has ever taken offence from the standard BC/AD dating system. It is all up to personal preference. If somebody wants to use AD/BC then let them, ditto with CE/BCE.
The largest problem with changing the starting date would be the inherent confusion from changing everything. If we were to choose a random date and enforce it as year one (there is no year zero, never has been, never will be), then years later anybody reading old books would be hopelessly misinformed as to proper dates. This was not a problem when the dating system was originally changed from the founding of Rome to the birth of Christ, as there were very few books in existance. Today, there would be an enormous problem with converting everything.

Go ahead and use whatever you want, but don't take offence if Christians or non-Christians use whatever dating system they want. Just don't change year one.

A.D, despite common belief, does not stand for "After Death." It's latin. "Anno Domini," the Year of Our Lord. This term, for nearly two thousand years, was used to define the date. However, at the end of the twentieth century, PC activists dubbed this Christian system to be politically incorrect and ordered it to be replaced with C.E., or "Common Era." The year has stayed the same.


Actually it wasn't out of political correctness, but rather the fact that it's unknown when Christ was born. Depending on who you listen to, JC could have been born between 3 and 13 BC.

So, to not get into any further complications it was decided that it would be best if we refer to the current count as Common Era, because it's pretty much followed all around the world, even if other nations and cultures keep a parallel count.

It's all the same to me, if you ask, but I think I prefer CE a bit better.

Yes, lets get rid of all those annoying Roman month names also. They are so offensive to everyone who is not roman or adheres to their belief structure.

I think we should invent a new time system. Metric time!

Now if there were only a way to change the earth to rotate around the sun every 100 days that would be perfect!

The Mayan calendar. The Mayas were the greatest calendarists in their time, and their calendar is still pretty accurate, almost on par with our modern, atomically corrected one. They divided the year in 18 months of 20 days each. The month was made up of 4 weeks of 5 days. At the end of the 360 days they added another week for festivities (and sometimes a day, to keep it in sync).

This system has the advantage of not having to remember how many days are in which month, all dates would be the same (no more "is the 3rd a Monday or a Tuesday?") and we already leave the days between Christmas and New Year for festivities anyway.

They also had a parallel calendar of 260 days based on the orbit of Venus, but that one was for religious ceremonies and we can do without.

when we first saw it at my school we thought right wing protostants did it, because we all thought it stood for "Christ's Era" and "Before Chrsit's Era"