NationStates Jolt Archive

For all you heretics and non-believers (j/k :D ), what are your thoughts on using a system of time based upon the birth of someone you do not believe in? Is it something minor not worth fighting over, or something that you feel strongly against?

On a similar note, the thing I don't like about BCE/CE is that it's just plain lazy. They may have changed the lettering, but they're still basing it on the Christian calender. There's nothing "common" about 5 CE and 2005 CE, and the only event of notice that happened on 1 CE was the birth of...well, you know ;) If you want to distance yourself from the religious calenders, at least base your starting date on something else.

I use it because otherwise I don't have a damned clue what day it is, wind up late for work, and probably miss my own birthday.

I guess the bigger question is why the Chinese calender was never adopted. I mean, it's been around since 500 BC, and it's more accurately attuned to Lunar cycles.

I have no problem with the Christian calendar. Whatever, it is minor.

For all you heretics and non-believers (j/k :D ), what are your thoughts on using a system of time based upon the birth of someone you do not believe in?

*Approximate* time of his birth: Jesus was born somewhere between 10 BC and 10 AD; with quite a few fans for the 6 to 4 BC period. He was most likely not born in december; september/ october is often mentioned by people who have engaged in complex (and possibly contrived) Bible analysing.

This of course is assuming there even was such a man ;)

What irritates me much more is that we do not have a year 0, but go from -1 to 1.

By my calendars it's :

4 Thw al-Qi`dah 1426 A.H. or 5 Kislev 5766

No Jesus in the equation.

For all you heretics and non-believers (j/k :D ), what are your thoughts on using a system of time based upon the birth of someone you do not believe in? Is it something minor not worth fighting over, or something that you feel strongly against?

On a similar note, the thing I don't like about BCE/CE is that it's just plain lazy. They may have changed the lettering, but they're still basing it on the Christian calender. There's nothing "common" about 5 CE and 2005 CE, and the only event of notice that happened on 1 CE was the birth of...well, you know ;) If you want to distance yourself from the religious calenders, at least base your starting date on something else.

Um, actually Atheists do believe in Jesus as there are temple records and other evidence that he existed. We just don't think he was a God or a prophet or anything like that.

Quibbling aside, I don't really care and I certainly don't think it's worth the effort of trying to change it. I personally can't think of any other date we could use.

Oh, and if it makes you feel any better, many historians reckon that Jesus was born in 2 BC, not 0 BC anyway.:p

Um, actually Atheists do believe in Jesus as there are temple records and other evidence that he existed.

You missed the historical Jesus topic it seems :P Everyone seems to be certain such documents exist, but noone can actually produce them.

You missed the historical Jesus topic it seems :P Everyone seems to be certain such documents exist, but noone can actually produce them.

But if enough people believe in the documents they'll have to exist! Like fairies!:(

Oh, and if it makes you feel any better, many historians reckon that Jesus was born in 2 BC, not 0 BC anyway.:p

Being born in 0BC would have been a neat trick, seeing as how there is no 0BC (or 0AD, for that matter).

By my calendars it's :

4 Thw al-Qi`dah 1426 A.H. or 5 Kislev 5766

No Jesus in the equation.
Gah?

O'Brien once said, "Irrelevant."

This topic is.

Being born in 0BC would have been a neat trick, seeing as how there is no 0BC (or 0AD, for that matter).

*points to bonfire*

Any objections?

As you may have noticed from my posting I am very tired and will leave now before I make myself look like a complete idiot.

Byeeeee......:)

Gah?

I go by the Hijri and Jewish calendars. The rest of the country can kiss my ass.

For all you heretics and non-believers (j/k :D ), what are your thoughts on using a system of time based upon the birth of someone you do not believe in? Is it something minor not worth fighting over, or something that you feel strongly against?

On a similar note, the thing I don't like about BCE/CE is that it's just plain lazy. They may have changed the lettering, but they're still basing it on the Christian calender. There's nothing "common" about 5 CE and 2005 CE, and the only event of notice that happened on 1 CE was the birth of...well, you know ;) If you want to distance yourself from the religious calenders, at least base your starting date on something else.
It's called the Common Era because the calendar is now common to many cultures. Changing it now would be a nightmare, as many old documents would need updating to reflect the new dates.

It would be hard to choose a new day for the basis anyway. One that could be useful is the earliest recorded date (which is on some Mayan relic), as then all hsitoric dates would have a positive year, making mental calculations slightly easier.

Well as long as we Use the Gregorian Calendar and BC & AD , we are recognizing the important role Jesus Christ had on our lives and culture, regardless if you believe in him or not.

As for the Jewish calendar that is probably a weak attempt, tell me when you put the date on papers for school or work do you use 2005 or 5766? So no the country does not lick you in the ass, you bend to the will of the christian majority whether you like it or not.

It's called the Common Era because the calendar is now common to many cultures. Changing it now would be a nightmare, as many old documents would need updating to reflect the new dates.

Not only that, but it can be argued that the birth of Christianity ushered in the "common era" of organized religion. Even atheists (such as myself) can recognize the impact the Church had upon the shaping of the world. Bringing "god to the heathens" was a large part in the exploration/ colonization of the New World/Africa, etc.

Even today- I may not like it, but there IS a church on damn near every street corner.

I use B.C.E. and C.E.

Well, if you ask me, it wouldn't be too bad of an idea. After all, I don't even like Christianity all that much, at least not enough to support the Christian calendar.

Not only that, but it can be argued that the birth of Christianity ushered in the "common era" of organized religion. Even atheists (such as myself) can recognize the impact the Church had upon the shaping of the world. Bringing "god to the heathens" was a large part in the exploration/ colonization of the New World/Africa, etc.

Even today- I may not like it, but there IS a church on damn near every street corner.

I use B.C.E. and C.E.
How is their methods all that different from the Jewish faith? as far as organized religion is concerned (not the specific beliefs)

And why are thoes differences in organization momentus enough to use them to distinguish "common era" from not

For all you heretics and non-believers (j/k :D ), what are your thoughts on using a system of time based upon the birth of someone you do not believe in? Is it something minor not worth fighting over, or something that you feel strongly against?

So, what do you call Thursdays?
It's just a minor thing.

On a similar note, the thing I don't like about BCE/CE is that it's just plain lazy. They may have changed the lettering, but they're still basing it on the Christian calender. There's nothing "common" about 5 CE and 2005 CE, and the only event of notice that happened on 1 CE was the birth of...well, you know ;) If you want to distance yourself from the religious calenders, at least base your starting date on something else.
Meh, it's just tradition. Plus, it was supposed to be the birth of Christ, but since Christ was actually born somewhere between 3 and 7 BC, to say 1 AD when it's really 3 AD, or the other way around, would be a bit silly. That's why the Common Era is prefered now (although it was started to remove religious references, but that's dumb).

Anyway, makes no real difference.

Funny, I was planning on posting something about this later today, and I will. Just funny that someone else decided to post it.

The only reason I use the "Christian" calendar is the only reason I really need: I am familiar with it.

Well I am Christian myself, so naturally I have no problems with it :)

But, I have to say, changing it to something completely different simply because you don't believe in Christ makes, to me at least, about as much sense as saying 'Fourth-day-of-the-week-day' instead of Thursday just because I don't believe Thor ever existed (or any of the other alternatives just because I don't believe in Saturn [the God, not the planet], Woden, Friten or Tiu). Anyone willing to do that? If so don't let me stop you, but don't go around making the rest of us do it :p

I don't really care. It works, and everyone understands it. It would just be too much of a hassle to use anything else, because no one would understand my dating system (which would start from the year of my birth as Year 1) and I wouldn't want to have to reorganize my year to fit the new system.

Did anyone else notice that the calendar is not based on Jesus' birth but on his resurrection?

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/calendars.html
The Gregorian calendar resulted from a perceived need to reform the method of calculating dates of Easter. Under the Julian calendar the dating of Easter had become standardized, using March 21 as the date of the equinox and the Metonic cycle as the basis for calculating lunar phases. By the thirteenth century it was realized that the true equinox had regressed from March 21 (its supposed date at the time of the Council of Nicea, +325) to a date earlier in the month. As a result, Easter was drifting away from its springtime position and was losing its relation with the Jewish Passover. Over the next four centuries, scholars debated the "correct" time for celebrating Easter and the means of regulating this time calendrically. The Church made intermittent attempts to solve the Easter question, without reaching a consensus.

By the sixteenth century the equinox had shifted by ten days, and astronomical New Moons were occurring four days before ecclesiastical New Moons. At the behest of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V introduced a new Breviary in 1568 and Missal in 1570, both of which included adjustments to the lunar tables and the leap-year system. Pope Gregory XIII, who succeeded Pope Pius in 1572, soon convened a commission to consider reform of the calendar, since he considered his predecessor's measures inadequate.

The recommendations of Pope Gregory's calendar commission were instituted by the papal bull "Inter Gravissimus," signed on 1582 February 24. Ten days were deleted from the calendar, so that 1582 October 4 was followed by 1582 October 15, thereby causing the vernal equinox of 1583 and subsequent years to occur about March 21. And a new table of New Moons and Full Moons was introduced for determining the date of Easter.

Subject to the logistical problems of communication and governance in the sixteenth century, the new calendar was promulgated through the Roman-Catholic world. Protestant states initially rejected the calendar, but gradually accepted it over the coming centuries. The Eastern Orthodox churches rejected the new calendar and continued to use the Julian calendar with traditional lunar tables for calculating Easter. Because the purpose of the Gregorian calendar was to regulate the cycle of Christian holidays, its acceptance in the non-Christian world was initially not at issue. But as international communications developed, the civil rules of the Gregorian calendar were gradually adopted around the world.

Did anyone else notice that the calendar is not based on Jesus' birth but on his resurrection?

Well, the calendar reforms were certainly centred on Easter rather Christmas for the simple reason that Jesus's overcoming death was regarded as much more theologically important than his just being born.

Well, the calendar reforms were certainly centred on Easter rather Christmas for the simple reason that Jesus's overcoming death was regarded as much more theologically important than his just being born.
Fools! Anyone who knows things knows that Santa > Easter Bunny.
And people using the Xtian calendar is no more signifigant than Xtians celebrating then end of the work week on Friday (named after Frigga, the Norse Goddess of Marriage).

Gosh, if you heard my beliefs on the Bible, you would think me a 'religious right' type, but I use B. C. and B. C. E. As I often write on theological subjects, I am often reviewed by many who do not accept my views. I, thus, write in terms they at least accept. When in Rome . . .

I would imagine that it is the same way with Atheists and the Christian calendar.