Crazy religious woman?

I fancy boys said:
They're trying to change BC/AD?!?!?!

For God's sake! is anyone REALLY going to be offended if we continue to use those terms? if they are, they can sod off.

This country is going mad, the "nanny" approach of our government catering to everyone OTHER than ourselves is just ridiculous.

/rant
Click to expand...

True, but why should anyone get offended by the use of CE/BCE either. Each to their own.

And interestingly Wikipedia says the first known use of CE was in a 1584 theology book and referred to "Christian Era". So tell her to STFU as it was her lot that started it!!
 
stockhausen said:
When you say you "work" for a University, do you actually do anything other than dream up politically correct issues to waste time on?

Are you paid or a voluntary "worker"?

Does your University break for the "Winterval" holiday?
Click to expand...


I work (salaried, 37.5 hours per week) for a University yes.

I work in Student Services offering advice and guidance by telephone, email and face-to-face.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by Winterval, but if you're referring to the December-January break, yes, we do break then.
 
Mr Jack said:
xmas is Christian in origin; it comes from the use of the Greek letter Chi for Christ.
Click to expand...

I did not know that :) Thank you. I think i meant to put winterval but im not up on mah terminology


Tefal said:
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.
Click to expand...

His indirect implication that by aligning myself opposed to the motion i was fearful or a coward was an insult, so i responded in kind.


Ring Peace said:
You are correct of course that every single thing that has had its name changed has been "revolutionary, introducing wholly new concepts" :(
Click to expand...

That is the point, it SHOULD be.
 
If it's pointing to the same point in time why bother changing it?

I understand why you are doing it to remove the religious element, but unless we change calenders to show other date's (i.e. not 2010 AD), why are you doing this? Those are the date's as shown on the calender, so unless we suddenly decide to switch to the Koran's timeline, or 'Swatch' time, I see little point in trying to change.

I don't think she's crazy, just defending what she believes in. I'll await the post where you say that students can't wear religious garb's or pendants because academic study isn't religious based (in general).

(BTW: I agree that course's shouldn't be religious, but you have deliberately made something out of nothing - unless many other religions complained about the use of BC and AD?)
 
Last edited:
Deiwos said:
I work (salaried, 37.5 hours per week) for a University yes.

I work in Student Services offering advice and guidance by telephone, email and face-to-face.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by Winterval, but if you're referring to the December-January break, yes, we do break then.
Click to expand...

So you break for Christmas! ;)
 
Or the "Season of Light" as the numpty in Birmingham decided year's ago when I was there.

Also, was just thinking a little more on this, it does seem ironic that a religious studies degree would have been a much more appropriate place for the use of BCE etc.

The thing you have to consider is that if people are used to a certain calender, it will make studying and understanding of the course content easier if they can relate to it. If they were all aliens on the course they'd probably want a different time scale used, but given that the majority of the world use the gregorian calender, it seems daft to change.

A much better system would be to refer to the time period since the current date, and that way you completely avoid any date references. I.e. 2000 years ago... this happened etc, One million year's ago this happened etc...

Disclosure: I'm a Christian, but have no predisposition to keeping a calender for the sake of my saviours birth or any other significant event ;) Time is our concept as such, and personally I would prefer if we used the earliest known PROVABLE time as a reference point. But... we don't, and it's pretty much understood by everyone at present so there is no need to change.
 
Last edited:
Amleto said:
found this: http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/why_3530.shtml mildly interesting.
Click to expand...

Still misses the point that whatever you call it you are still centred around the Christian history, which is the actual contentious point here.

Currently:

Student: What do BC and AD mean?
Teacher: Before Christ and Anno Domini, which means in the year of our Lord, referring to Jesus.

Under BCE/CE system:

Student: What do BCE and CE mean?
Teacher: Before common era and common era.
Student: What is the common era?
Teacher: The time since Jesus' alleged birth.

Massive fail.
 
BunnyKillBot said:
His indirect implication that by aligning myself opposed to the motion i was fearful or a coward was an insult, so i responded in kind.
Click to expand...

But retardation means to slow down/delay.

By blindly accepting change you are speeding it up, to resit change is retardation.

Unless of course you're using a more current changed meaning of "Retard" but you wouldn't be one to accept such change would you after all it's not very revolutionary.
 
Scougar said:
Or the "Season of Light" as the numpty in Birmingham decided year's ago when I was there.

Also, was just thinking a little more on this, it does seem ironic that a religious studies degree would have been a much more appropriate place for the use of BCE etc.

The thing you have to consider is that if people are used to a certain calender, it will make studying and understanding of the course content easier if they can relate to it. If they were all aliens on the course they'd probably want a different time scale used, but given that the majority of the world use the gregorian calender, it seems daft to change.

A much better system would be to refer to the time period since the current date, and that way you completely avoid any date references. I.e. 2000 years ago... this happened etc, One million year's ago this happened etc...
Click to expand...

CE and BCE do not change the gregorian calendar, they simply replace BC and AD.

I do think the whole process is a little unnecessary and whilst I'm an atheist I have no issues with following what is essentially a religious calendar as to follow something else would be more or less impossible for day to day life.

I still think this woman is a few screws loose though.
 
Tefal said:
but the land also moves :D
Click to expand...

Tectonic plates?

OK, here goes... I didn't want to do it, but I will.

The Bible is a moral text, not a scientific one. Anyone consulting it for moral guidance will be fine with the loose use of scientific terms. Anyone consulting it for scientific guidance is missing the point.

After all, all the arguing in the world isn't going to come up with a good reason why Pi=3, so it should be clear that the Bible is not mathematically or scientifically sound. That does not, however, mean that the overriding arc of the story, or the moral teaching, can not be relied upon.
 
Tefal said:
But retardation means to slow down/delay.

By blindly accepting change you are speeding it up, to resit change is retardation.

Unless of course you're using a more current changed meaning of "Retard" but you wouldn't be one to accept such change would you after all it's not very revolutionary.
Click to expand...

He's trying to use a big word to sound clever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom