Crazy religious woman?

rypt said:
No, as far as we know (AFAIK) from the little information the bible truly gives Jesus was actually born in what would now be 33BC (if he was ever actually born), or maybe 4BC, or maybe 6AD or 2BC ....
Click to expand...

Oh okay, you mean providing the scrambled calculations based upon the vague biblical chronology are correct.

Fact is we will never know. Fact also is they could call it BT and APD if they wanted but the year on our calendar every year will always relate the number of years since the 'accepted' birth of jesus. The only way to remove religion from the equation is to completely change the calender also. After all, every month and day of the week is named after a God too.
 
Tigjaw said:
Oh okay, you mean providing the scrambled calculations based upon the vague biblical chronology are correct.

Fact is we will never know. Fact also is they could call it BT and APD if they wanted but the year on our calendar every year will always relate the number of years since the 'accepted' birth of jesus. The only way to remove religion from the equation is to completely change the calender also. After all, every month and day of the week is named after a God too.
Click to expand...

Which is why moving to BCE/AC is fine as then we are no longer relying on a religious date that is not in fact accurate but are simply picking an arbitrary date
 
I wouldn't say using CE/BCE is anti-Christian; Jehovah's Witnesses use CE and BCE in their publications, generally explaining in footnotes that the terms stand for "Common Era" and "Before the Common Era".
 
Deiwos said:
I work for a University and I received the following email from a student.



What're your opinions on this? Personally, I think the womans lost it. I still haven't replied to her as I haven't a clue what to say other than 'ooooook?' but I'd be interested to see what you all think.
Click to expand...

Not the full ticket, not a very coherent or well constructed reason for this complaint.
Tell her to go to the VC or Chancellor themselves, as this cannot be changed due to financial constraints under the current financial atmosphere, whilst pointing out that you are not her lap dog but her Lecturer. Such complaints can also be put forward by her student representative and can be further discussed in the student rep council.
Might i suggest contacting the pastor, thats if your university has one, whose experience of this may be greater than yours of such situations and whose advice on this could be invaluable.
 
dont care whether its changed or not - however her then going off on one saying she is being discriminated against? wtf....women + religious = crazy bat out of hell...

How does it affect her in any way? I can understand if the University (place of study) was called smt like St. Josephs Hallowed Grounds of Inquiry into our Lord :D

Because then its like she has joined that Uni because of its religious affiliations but then the Uni goes and decides to do away with such christian language...yeah i can see how that would be annoying.

I mean if i were to join the Church of Satan and bought the clothes, whips, gear and unholy books and whatnot BUT suddenly the high priest decides he wants to be a born-again 7th day advent hopist and forces us all to start hop-ing into church on sundays then yeah i'd be ****ed and i'd have a legitimate grievance.... but this woman in the OP is just got PMT i reckon :p
 
The absolutely massive point is that the whole world (except some jungle tribes) will call this year 2010.
It is only called 2010 because of the birth of Jesus (whether you believe him to be real or not).
2010 would not exist without Jesus so there is no need to change anything.
All the nations could get together and come up with some none religious dating but we would probably end up with star dates as in Star Trek.
 
I agree with her. Trying to de-christianise it incase it offends someone? Sorry but the UK* historically is Christian, if you've got a problem with that then fair enough - please close the door behind you when you leave.


gary996 said:
Why do we need to change BC and AD in the first place. Leave it alone its been like this for a long time.
Click to expand...

cymatty said:
I agree, what is the point of changing it? Worried it may offend someone?
Click to expand...

simulatorman said:
This. If it offends some religious or atheist nut then tough luck. Must be another form of some political correctness for aliens.
Click to expand...

* - And it's not like it's only the UK that says this is 2010 years since the birth of Christ. Pretty much the whole world has it's time separated before and after the coming of Christ. One could therefore assume that the coming of God's son to the earth was infact a pretty big deal...
 
Last edited:
If she does what she says will it effect you or her in anyway? I mean does she have to use BCE or not? If not can't you just answer her 'fine', and tell her to take it up with the textbook publishers?
 
I can't see why the students shouldn't be allowed to use either term. It's perfectly clear in both cases what they mean.
 
Westyfield2 said:
I agree with her. Trying to de-christianise it incase it offends someone? Sorry but the UK historically is Chrstian, if you've got a problem with that then fair enough - please close the door behind you when you leave.
Click to expand...

It's not anti-christian though; it's just being civil and considerate to people of all religious traditions. I'm christian and I personally have no problem with CE/BCE.
 
Tell her that if the church got its way she'd still be teathered to the kitchen rather than being at uni.
that and if she doesn't stfu you'll set bob on her.
 
Oh yes, what we need is more muddling of terms. Multiple terms for everything! Standards, who needs them, pah.

As a Christian don't give a monkies either way. Why the earths rotation about our sun is an effective marker for 'years', or the transitions in an atom of caesium for seconds is beyond me. Its just an arbitary measure for the passage of time.

The only good thing about BC and AD is they are universally recognised it. Changing it is pointless rhetoric, hence why this women believes its a direct move against christianity.

If it aint broke, dont fix it. If its politically correct, stay the **** away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom