Crazy religious woman?
- Thread starter Deiwos
- Start date
I agree, I think we should decide on the age of the universe and use that as a benchmark..
I want to write on cheques 2 / oct / 13,456,432,432, or should it be since earth existed?
Even if you chance to CE and BCE, you're still using the same "event" to fix the time around. Until you can come up with an alternative event, you're really just hiding the "problem", and you can't change the event without changing every date everywhere. Good luck with that.
yes but as we all know only about 4000 years of it.....
Hilarious troll is hilarious.
Most Christians are not YECs. It's just unfortunate that a vocal minority are.
The Bible itself states that Jesus was born in the reign of King Herod. Herod died in the year 4 BC. So Jesus was born before Christ?
BC and AD are clearly awkward terms. However, shifting all the dates by just a handful of years would cause a lot of confusion. It's far easier to use the current datum point whilst avoiding the explicit reference to the birth of Christ, which we can't explicitly pin down.
BC and AD are clearly awkward terms. However, shifting all the dates by just a handful of years would cause a lot of confusion. It's far easier to use the current datum point whilst avoiding the explicit reference to the birth of Christ, which we can't explicitly pin down.
I'd never even heard of those new terms before today. What is the point in changing it? None, even if you change it it is still based on the birth date of Christ!!!
People really have too much time on their hands, why not try to change something that needs changing for a change.
People really have too much time on their hands, why not try to change something that needs changing for a change.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 May 2005
- Posts
- 387
It's strange that people are wanting to keep this specific use of Latin in Christian use but don't seem to have any trouble not using Latin for everything else? What is so wrong in bringing these terms into up to date language, tradition for tradition's sake is pointless, fear of change is a sign of cowardice.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
And blind acceptance of change without due consideration is retardation.
Do you have any idea what cowardice actually means, or are you simply using it as a power word to appear clever? To be a coward is to seek the preservation of ones life, at any cost. Morality, logic and reason are all discarded in the rat race to save ones own agenda. The zombie-esque scenario of people clambering over other people to get the last few boats is the epitome definition of what cowardice represents.
The Fear of change (which we are ALL, instinctually, subjected to) has no place in this thread. If the change was revolutionary, introducing wholly new concepts into historical chronological marking, then so be it. But, as it, is, it is little more than politically correct re-branding. Changing accident, to incident, or christmas, to xmas.
Implying those who disagree with the change are either fearful, or cowards is grossly inept.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 23 May 2005
- Posts
- 387
I think you should look up the definition of coward and not stop when you read the most extreme version, and "zombie-esque" is just a tad ridiculous.
You are correct of course that every single thing that has had its name changed has been "revolutionary, introducing wholly new concepts"
Why change something that almost everyone in this country recognises?
It would offend me as well,sounds like some academic wants to change very common terms for his own beliefs and agenda!
If I was doing that course,I would write BC and AD and stick two fingers up at someone who insisted I should do otherwise.
It would offend me as well,sounds like some academic wants to change very common terms for his own beliefs and agenda!
If I was doing that course,I would write BC and AD and stick two fingers up at someone who insisted I should do otherwise.
She may be a reactionary woman but she has a point.
Especially when she asks if they would do the same thing if it was a Muslim thing. I think all tree hugging lefties should spend a year in Iran or Iraq and see how tolerant of Christianity they are.
Especially when she asks if they would do the same thing if it was a Muslim thing. I think all tree hugging lefties should spend a year in Iran or Iraq and see how tolerant of Christianity they are.
Technically it's expediting.
But being a traditionalist you'd know that the use of the word "retardation" doesn't make sense given it's original meaning.
found this: http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/why_3530.shtml mildly interesting.
If indeed he did actually exist.
Either way, I still don't see the problem. If someone wants to use BC/AD that's fine. Same goes with BCE/BC, which is probably a bit more PC. At the end of the day, it's probably only that Uni's policy for whatever reason, I don't see the big deal.
i
The Gregorian calender was issued by Papal decree in 1582 and not adopted in England until 1752. Each date means that England was Protestant not Catholic. Prior to 1752 Great Britain used the Julian Calender which was first introduced by the then non-Christian Romans.
The Gregorian calender was issued by Papal decree in 1582 and not adopted in England until 1752. Each date means that England was Protestant not Catholic. Prior to 1752 Great Britain used the Julian Calender which was first introduced by the then non-Christian Romans.