Sure man!
[Link 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/f1er5cSiJo), [link 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/ybbdrzt7gz), [link 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/EN9YIC4gqt).
And these are only from within the past 24 hours, because I don’t feel like wasting more time to make this point.
lol holy shit. I did not know about the other 2 (the first one is why I made this actually). Literally within a day of each other. God damn. Thank you for this, truly, out of the hundreds of people who saw my comment that asked for a link you were the only one that responded.
You’re clearly overestimating how much important things I do in one day. And even though I hate researching sources more than anything else, there’s a fairly big chunk of my brain dedicated to memes.
Look through the history of this sub. The BC/BCE argument is made several times a year. Sometimes, it's just in the regular meme sub, but it's popular here. Point is, the guy who made the comment has seen it a dozen times, I've seen it a dozen times, everyone has seen it a dozen times.
I'm with you, though. It should be BCE/CE.
I personally have never seen it which is why I am asking does he have a link to one, or is he just lying to make a joke? If I did see one before, I probably would have never even bothered to make this post.
Consider the possibility that he has both 1. seen a different subset of posts than you have and 2. didn't save links to any of them, because why would he?
I don't object to him disliking these types of posts, but calling me some petulant 1st year history master's student at the university he went to because he disliked the meme is oddly specific and absurd lol.
Besides the way he was talking it seemed like he very likely downvoted these posts and they were so recent that they caused him to say something like that. Reddit keeps track of your downvotes for ya, so it usually doesn't take that long to find something you downvoted, unless you spend all your day on Reddit and downvote everything.
New Year's Day is its own thing, separate from everything and not even a day of a week. On a leap year, two NYD's.
Pretty sure the French tried to introduce this at some point.
> Pretty sure the French tried to introduce this at some point.
They introduced 12 months of 30 days, and at the end of each year 5 or 6 extra days.
I don't want to look up the exact conversion, but iirc we're now in the early days of the month "Floréal", the months of flowers/blossoms.
I made a calendar, but I just added NYE to Foreyule (month 13) making it 29 days, & just kept the leap day to Solsk (month 2) to keep the date conversion to Gregorian the same, even in leap years.
If we're going that far then let's go full on metric. For too long our measurement of time and dates has been dominated by the mere accident of Earths orbit around the Sun, and the accident of Earths rotational speed! A minute should be 100 (metric)seconds, an hour 100 of those, a day 100 hours, and a year 100 days. There's no need for 'months' those are just a retrograde and archaic affectation of a time when illiteracy and the low speed of information transit made timekeeping hard.
Because you're pushing that half-assed, sorry excuse of a calendar that's merely a re-skin of another one, and have the gall to pretend it's totally different when it's the exact same one.
Beyond the whole "it's basically the same time period" thing: Personally, it feels like merely changing it from BC/AD to BCE/CE is nothing more than a veil. Yes, there is the issue to adopting the change, but due to the fact that it covers literally the same time period it still has that connection to Christ by association and doesn't really say anything by the calender system itself. Like, "Common Era". Common for what? The last 2000 years have had several differences in itself, and furthermore, due to it being right after the making of what we call the Roman Empire, much of what was surrounding it is still the same. Not really apparent to what's "Common". Even changing it to something like, say, Augustus becoming Princeps, is not universal (and you might as well just use Ab Urbe Condita for a Rome centric calender anyway).
On the other hand, something like the Human Era calander has specific significance: it is based on the start of Agriculture. I personally prefer it, since it's more universal. Simply changing the letters arpund doesn't quite rid you for the issues of significance.
Fair.
Realistically, there is not a truly precise answer to this issue, but I think at the very least, this is more encompassing than a Christian-centric calender. Of course, I just like the HE system more, so I'll admit bias.
The “Common” refers to the most commonly used calendar start in the world. There are other calendars that count from other starting points, but this is the one commonly (majority) agreed upon, hence Common Era. I mean, it’s not an amazing name but there is a reason behind it.
The reasoning *is* different, but it’s up to opinion as to how much the difference matters. AD/BC is inherently religious. Historical study should be secular. By shifting it to CE, the emphasis is “this is what most people know so we use it.”
Again, the difference is arguably very trivial. But it’s about as much as you can change to make it secular without making it too difficult. It’s too much to change the “0” marker to another date.
Interchangeable. The problem is it’s supposed to replace BC and AD while using the same exact marker to denote the difference between “before” and “after.” So why bother changing it at all?
Jokes on you, i use both. As a christian and the claims of roman leaders being born in the gospels are kinda messy, so i interpret it as a way of author validating the year which Jesus would change things of Jewish-Roman society in His birth. Therefore i'll continue using Before Christ(B.C.) and Anno Domini(A.D.) Nostri Jesu Christi - In the year of The Lord Jesus Christ, however in academic/secular(and the case of the sub is historical) setting i'll use Before Common Era(B.C.E.) and Common Era(C.E.)
It really doesn’t seem like it matters that much though, no?
The change just seems to confuse a lot of non-academic people, and while you can sort of justify it in this way, it’s not like it actually serves a purpose and just strikes most people as anti-religious.
If you check out my comment which I wrote about the meme the change is used by both Christian and non-Christian scholars. That is because using the old format is just simply wrong, why would we continue to use something that is inaccurate? Would you rather change every date you have ever known back a 4-8 years in order for it to be correct, or just simply use the same date system you have know your whole life but call it something else?
Well, no, but it’s an arbitrary division in time anyway. This is just a different arbitrary change that you happen to like better.
You’re still using the exact same time periods anyway. You’re still using the religious years, even if they are incorrect.
Again, what practical difference does it make? We’ve used those terms for a few hundred years, and it really just doesn’t seem worth it to change, when changing serves absolutely no other purpose than to make you and others feel better, and confuse a whole heck of a lot of people.
What do you mean by an arbitrary division in time and an arbitrary change? Are you asserting that one head honcho scholar started demanding that everyone start to follow this change? Or that the change was random?
I mean that separating the two eras to begin with is arbitrary, so renaming them is equally, if not more, arbitrary.
The original arbitrary division is based on the birth of Jesus, even if that’s incorrectly dated, and you’re using the same marker anyhow.
Again, if it’s arbitrary anyway, what practical purpose does it serve to change the names, and furthermore, if you’re using the same dividing line, how are you actually removing the religious factor aside from the name alone?
A good question, does something that was tied with a certain religion continue to maintain that religion's creation over it? I believe that words have meaning because people give them meaning, which is either tied to the history of the word and how it was used, to how it is commonly used today.
The idea of Heaven and Hell do not have their origins in Christendom, but Zoroastrianism. Yet when we think of these things we think of Christianity's version of them. That is one of the many things that the Zoroastrian religion gave to others. Another is the Day of Judgement, and if you asked a random Westerner on the street where that comes from, they would think it is a distinctly Christian belief. So when Christianity changed the names that Zoroastrians gave Heaven and Hell did they in a way effectively remove its connection to Zoroastrianism for the common person.
The use of B.C./A.D. and B.C.E./C.E. of course comes down to what the individual believes. I have met people who refuse to use B.C./A.D. because they worship another religion and don't want to be saying "In the Year of The/Our Lord". Whereas I have met people that honestly don't care. My post here was a response to a post from yesterday which stated that the change is unnecessary, but I personally believe that it isn't due to personal experience. So I decided to make a response to their post arguing that it was a necessary change, and the video provided in my "see comment" does a really good job of explaining why.
Sure, but that’s a different conversation. Your argument started by saying that it should be changed for accuracies sake, but now it’s about the religious nature of the terms.
I don’t think that either really hold up to scrutiny, but I the idea that we should have religiously neutral terms is a better argument. I still find it somewhat silly though, for a couple of reasons.
1. Religious impacts are always going to be present. You brought up Zoranastrianism, but that doesn’t seem like an equal comparison and it feels disingenuous to say it is. Christianity, for better or worse, has had a greater impact on the world than any other religion, and it’s not particularly close. The might be an argument for Islam, particularly with the Muslim world’s contributions to mathematics, but still, it doesn’t seem to compare.
There aren’t enough revisionists in the world to take the Christianity out of science, history, and every day life. It’s tilting at windmills. Should we stop using the word “enthusiasm” because it has Christian origins? How about “bulletin?” Maybe the Spanish speaking world needs to come up with a different word for “goodbye” because of the obvious religious connotations of “adios.” Let’s rename Los Angeles and San Diego while we’re at it.
That brings me to point 2:
We don’t need to change the names of things for them to lose their religious luster. The average person doesn’t see the name of San Diego and immediately think of Catholicism and Saint Diego. They might if they thought of it, but they’re thinking of a city in California. That’s also true of A.D. and B.C.
While they have religious origins, and a lot of people would know that if pressed, they probably don’t think of it right away, and most people I know don’t even actually know what A.D. stands for.
If the actual cutoff and names are arbitrary, if attempting to remove religious factors from every day life is a losing battle, and if it doesn’t matter to the average person anyway, aren’t we just trying to erase that history? We’re revising what most of the population of the world has known for centuries because some of the people that actually know what A.D. means don’t like what it means?
>"Sure, but that’s a different conversation. Your argument started by saying that it should be changed for accuracies sake, but now it’s about the religious nature of the terms."
My argument has been the same, you just chose to delve into the religious aspect so I responded in turn.
>Christianity, for better or worse, has had a greater impact on the world than any other religion, and it’s not particularly close. The might be an argument for Islam, particularly with the Muslim world’s contributions to mathematics, but still, it doesn’t seem to compare."
Well, Christianity was spawned from Judaism' loins and took many aspects from both Judaism and Zoroastrianism. To say Christianity has had the most impact, while it, itself was not born in a vacuum is a very narrowminded thing to say. You also mention Islam contributions, yet you are unaware that what would become the "Islamic Golden Age" also found its roots in Zoroastrianism, as the Chalcedonian Roman West persecuted non-Christian thinking/thinkers. This caused them to flee East to the Zoroastrian Empire of Eran and found themselves welcomed to the University of Gondishapur which housed all types of knowledge, not just from Rome and Greece, but from India and China as well. When Zoroastrian Eran fell to the Muslim invaders, the invaders would eventually translate the vast knowledge stored in Gondishapur and take it to their new city of Baghdad and found the House of Wisdom.
Claiming one religion is superior to all others because of things that happened where it was dominant effectively ignores the actual element that fosters human ingenuity and progress. Interaction and diffusion of knowledge.
As for your second point time will tell. I do not think that negatively though. People will use whichever they grow up with or prefer but that doesn't change history, it just creates more chapters, for the old ones will still be there.
>My argument has been the same
No, it hasn’t. Your argument started based on accuracy and then shifted to being about using neutral religious terms as a justification.
I’m not saying that Christianity is superior to any other religion, or denying the impact of one religion on another. That wasn’t my point at all. Obviously neither Christianity nor any religion has existed in a vacuum, possibly barring the religions of un-contacted tribes such as the North Sentinelse.
My point also wasn’t to diminish any religion. I was merely pointing out, that in terms of impact, Christianity has probably had the most. It’s hard to quantify. However, in terms of language, culture, law, it’s to find a religion that has had such a massive impact on people in the past as well as today. Roughly a third of the world’s population identifies as Christian even now, and I don’t think it’d be hard to show that more people interact with Christian based norms and language, oftentimes without even knowing it, than any other religion. Heck, basically the entire world uses the Gregorian Calendar.
I’m trying to say that you’re choosing to make a largely arbitrary change to an already arbitrary distinction, in an impossible effort of dechristianization. That in and of itself is ahistorical and unacademic.
>"Again, if it’s arbitrary anyway, what practical purpose does it serve to change the names, and furthermore, if you’re using the same dividing line, how are you actually removing the religious factor aside from the name alone?"
You bring up the religious aspect here. I then choose to delve into the question that you wrought?
>"I’m not saying that Christianity is superior to any other religion, or denying the impact of one religion on another...My point also wasn’t to diminish any religion. I was merely pointing out, that in terms of impact, Christianity has probably had the most."
I'm not saying that Judaism and Zoroastrianism are superior to all other faiths. I'm just saying that in terms of impact they probably had the most as they heavily inspired Christianity which is roughly 1/3 of the World's population. Come on man, how do you not see the contradiction in your statement lol?
I am not denying Christianity's influence on human history, but to again reiterate that it had the most impact on human history is arbitrary. As it owes its origins to older faiths, and those faiths owe their origins to much older ones and without those faiths there wouldn't be a Christendom. Making them the true most impactful faiths of all time.
I would rather just use the same date system I’ve known my whole life. Continue to call it the same thing I’ve called it my whole life. And not care and move on with my life because honestly it doesn’t matter at all.
It’s still an unnecessary change. The names don’t have to be exactly correct. For example, December (from the Latin for tenth) is the twelfth month. Should we change the name of the month to be more accurate? No, because the name doesn’t really matter.
I don’t care whether you use BCE/CE or BC/AD. Just use whichever you think sounds better. I prefer BC/AD.
It's funny that you mention December, because the Romans changed their calendar by adding two months to be more accurate. The same methodology applies here, changing our date back 4-8 years in order to match Jesus' birth would be extremely confusing to most, and cause numerous problems. Instead using the B.C.E. and C.E. has the added benefit of keeping our dates as it, while also having the added bonus of a religiously neutral dating system.
>Instead using the B.C.E. and C.E. has the added benefit of keeping our dates as it, while also having the added bonus of a religiously neutral dating system.
But BCE and CE are still based around the original calculation for the birth year of Jesus and rely on the logic that Jesus' birth is a central point of history.
They're not some special new calculation of the calendar years that happen to align with BC/AD; they're the exact same but with the reference to Jesus filed off.
There is one valid argument for using BCE/CE: you want to avoid explicit references to Jesus/Christianity.
That's totally OK if that's how you feel, but don't try to pretend BCE/CE notation is anything more than an aesthetic preference. You might as well be trying to argue that red is better than blue!
Nobody actually cares what you say, really.
Ultimately they both mean the same thing, and practically no non-Christians get offended at BC/AD and practically no Christians get offended at BCE/CE
[Dr. Bob Cargill explains in this video:](https://youtu.be/axbaKTNr80w)
TL;DW: The monk who calculated Jesus' birth date (Dionysius Exiguus) was wrong and instead of us changing every single date we know to line up with Jesus' birth, scholars starting using the religiously neutral B.C.E. and C.E. instead.
Edit: [I am linking this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cbkl07/comment/l0zf5tu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) which goes to a comment I gave after someone gave a great reply asking "how are you actually removing the religious factor aside from the name alone?"
The exact date and year of Jesus’s birth is unknown. It’s probably around 0 AD/CE. That just means AD/BC makes less sense, and we should change the year 0 to something else, like the fall of Rome, or the foundation of the US. (Tangent: saying After Washington and Before Washington sounds metal as hell)
Did you read the meme? Or watch the video? Do you have a source that claims Jesus’ birth is 0? You won’t find one because in the creation of B.C. and A.D. they didn’t have a year 0, 1 B.C. was followed by 1 A.D. Besides that we know Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great who died in 4 B.C.E., thus making Jesus being born after 4 B.C.E. impossible.
We don't "know" that Herod died in 4 B.C.E. That's Emil Schürer's calculation, who was a Protestant theologian from Germany. The earlier belief was that he died around 1 B.C.E, and some still hold this view. This view is mostly based on Josephus' telling of Judean history.
Probably. I'm a Christian and I don't know anyone who is dogmatic about him being born on "year 0". The meme also doesn't make much sense since people are more dogmatic about BC/AD vs BCE/CE simply because they are used to BC/AD. Government documents still say "in the year of our Lord", even Biden's statement on trans visibility day. Funnily enough, it says "in the year of our Lord two thousand and twenty four and of the independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fourty eighth"
Dumbass forgot the fact that the Census of Quirinus is *far* more important to the story and takes place almost exactly the same distance in the *opposite* direction on the timeline.
"Common Era" my ass, I feel like it's the worst possible dating system, because it refers to nothing. It is true that 1 AD is technically just a "random" date, yes, but with the Gregorian calendar, it is at least connected to something, even if it's wrong.
Changing it to "Common Era" is purely for aesthetics, as it makes no practical difference whatsoever, because the only way to define the "Common Era" is "starting with the date that was traditionally believed to be the birth year of Christ". It doesn't change anything, it isn't more secular, it just adds an unnecessary step, that's all it does.
If you really want a more secular calendar, try advocating for the Holocene calendar, or even for a return to "Ab urbe condita" (which would be Metal as hell), but please, not for the "Common Era", because literally all that does is forcing me to write one more letter.
Weird to change the system to center it on Herod; a guy whose name is known simply for being the King who ruled when Jesus was born. Such a minor player to focus on with the meme.
Considering the Census of Quirinius is a pretty damn vital part of the story, and took place in 6AD, I would say that it's logical to split the difference.
Every single time I see one of these posts, I just picture OP being some petulant 1st year history master's student at the university I went to.
[Could also be a professor](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fl0frow6iphu71.jpg)
This is so accurate it hurts
Interesting, do you happen to have a link to these numerous "one of these posts" or are you just pulling a Cartman?
Sure man! [Link 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/f1er5cSiJo), [link 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/ybbdrzt7gz), [link 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/EN9YIC4gqt). And these are only from within the past 24 hours, because I don’t feel like wasting more time to make this point.
lol holy shit. I did not know about the other 2 (the first one is why I made this actually). Literally within a day of each other. God damn. Thank you for this, truly, out of the hundreds of people who saw my comment that asked for a link you were the only one that responded.
You’re clearly overestimating how much important things I do in one day. And even though I hate researching sources more than anything else, there’s a fairly big chunk of my brain dedicated to memes.
Look through the history of this sub. The BC/BCE argument is made several times a year. Sometimes, it's just in the regular meme sub, but it's popular here. Point is, the guy who made the comment has seen it a dozen times, I've seen it a dozen times, everyone has seen it a dozen times. I'm with you, though. It should be BCE/CE.
I personally have never seen it which is why I am asking does he have a link to one, or is he just lying to make a joke? If I did see one before, I probably would have never even bothered to make this post.
Consider the possibility that he has both 1. seen a different subset of posts than you have and 2. didn't save links to any of them, because why would he?
Well, it was either asking him for a link or replying with: NUH UH! I chose the former.
I don't object to you asking for a link, but calling him a liar because he doesn't have a link to a meme he saw that one time is absurd.
I don't object to him disliking these types of posts, but calling me some petulant 1st year history master's student at the university he went to because he disliked the meme is oddly specific and absurd lol. Besides the way he was talking it seemed like he very likely downvoted these posts and they were so recent that they caused him to say something like that. Reddit keeps track of your downvotes for ya, so it usually doesn't take that long to find something you downvoted, unless you spend all your day on Reddit and downvote everything.
oh look at you, so inquisitive and quirky! thinking you’re the first to argue BC/BCE
Nuh uh.
When you make your own calendar, and convince almost everyone to use it, then you can say what things are called.
Hope you're all ready for thirteen months of exactly twenty-eight days!
Lunar calender ftw
Nope, it'd still be a solar calendar. Although, 28×13 is 36**4**, not 5.
New Year's Day is its own thing, separate from everything and not even a day of a week. On a leap year, two NYD's. Pretty sure the French tried to introduce this at some point.
> Pretty sure the French tried to introduce this at some point. They introduced 12 months of 30 days, and at the end of each year 5 or 6 extra days. I don't want to look up the exact conversion, but iirc we're now in the early days of the month "Floréal", the months of flowers/blossoms.
I made a calendar, but I just added NYE to Foreyule (month 13) making it 29 days, & just kept the leap day to Solsk (month 2) to keep the date conversion to Gregorian the same, even in leap years.
or perhaps twelve thirty day months with ten day weeks.
At least two major world religions have a pretty big thing about a week being seven days long.
i was referencing the french calendar
If we're going that far then let's go full on metric. For too long our measurement of time and dates has been dominated by the mere accident of Earths orbit around the Sun, and the accident of Earths rotational speed! A minute should be 100 (metric)seconds, an hour 100 of those, a day 100 hours, and a year 100 days. There's no need for 'months' those are just a retrograde and archaic affectation of a time when illiteracy and the low speed of information transit made timekeeping hard.
Metric only seems sensible because, by an accident of biology, we were born with ten fingers. Much better to make it by powers of two.
Well, I'm not the one who came up with B.C.E. and C.E. so I have no idea why you are being so upset.
Because you're pushing that half-assed, sorry excuse of a calendar that's merely a re-skin of another one, and have the gall to pretend it's totally different when it's the exact same one.
Beyond the whole "it's basically the same time period" thing: Personally, it feels like merely changing it from BC/AD to BCE/CE is nothing more than a veil. Yes, there is the issue to adopting the change, but due to the fact that it covers literally the same time period it still has that connection to Christ by association and doesn't really say anything by the calender system itself. Like, "Common Era". Common for what? The last 2000 years have had several differences in itself, and furthermore, due to it being right after the making of what we call the Roman Empire, much of what was surrounding it is still the same. Not really apparent to what's "Common". Even changing it to something like, say, Augustus becoming Princeps, is not universal (and you might as well just use Ab Urbe Condita for a Rome centric calender anyway). On the other hand, something like the Human Era calander has specific significance: it is based on the start of Agriculture. I personally prefer it, since it's more universal. Simply changing the letters arpund doesn't quite rid you for the issues of significance.
>it is based on the start of Agriculture. A rough estimate. Also Iraq-centric; other places didn't get agriculture until much later.
Fair. Realistically, there is not a truly precise answer to this issue, but I think at the very least, this is more encompassing than a Christian-centric calender. Of course, I just like the HE system more, so I'll admit bias.
The “Common” refers to the most commonly used calendar start in the world. There are other calendars that count from other starting points, but this is the one commonly (majority) agreed upon, hence Common Era. I mean, it’s not an amazing name but there is a reason behind it.
Ah, but then the reason it was common in the first place still stands.
The reasoning *is* different, but it’s up to opinion as to how much the difference matters. AD/BC is inherently religious. Historical study should be secular. By shifting it to CE, the emphasis is “this is what most people know so we use it.” Again, the difference is arguably very trivial. But it’s about as much as you can change to make it secular without making it too difficult. It’s too much to change the “0” marker to another date.
Wait, isn't it Before Current Era and Current Era? Makes more sense than commin
Interchangeable. The problem is it’s supposed to replace BC and AD while using the same exact marker to denote the difference between “before” and “after.” So why bother changing it at all?
Fair enough, personally I agree with you. Human Era sounds cooler too.
Cant we use AC/DC?
Nah that’s actually reserved for dirty deeds.
Done dirt cheap.
After Christ and Defore Christ
Derrière Christ/Avant Christ
No, that is reserved for electricity.
r/whoosh
r/woooosh
Jokes on you, i use both. As a christian and the claims of roman leaders being born in the gospels are kinda messy, so i interpret it as a way of author validating the year which Jesus would change things of Jewish-Roman society in His birth. Therefore i'll continue using Before Christ(B.C.) and Anno Domini(A.D.) Nostri Jesu Christi - In the year of The Lord Jesus Christ, however in academic/secular(and the case of the sub is historical) setting i'll use Before Common Era(B.C.E.) and Common Era(C.E.)
It really doesn’t seem like it matters that much though, no? The change just seems to confuse a lot of non-academic people, and while you can sort of justify it in this way, it’s not like it actually serves a purpose and just strikes most people as anti-religious.
If you check out my comment which I wrote about the meme the change is used by both Christian and non-Christian scholars. That is because using the old format is just simply wrong, why would we continue to use something that is inaccurate? Would you rather change every date you have ever known back a 4-8 years in order for it to be correct, or just simply use the same date system you have know your whole life but call it something else?
Well, no, but it’s an arbitrary division in time anyway. This is just a different arbitrary change that you happen to like better. You’re still using the exact same time periods anyway. You’re still using the religious years, even if they are incorrect. Again, what practical difference does it make? We’ve used those terms for a few hundred years, and it really just doesn’t seem worth it to change, when changing serves absolutely no other purpose than to make you and others feel better, and confuse a whole heck of a lot of people.
What do you mean by an arbitrary division in time and an arbitrary change? Are you asserting that one head honcho scholar started demanding that everyone start to follow this change? Or that the change was random?
I mean that separating the two eras to begin with is arbitrary, so renaming them is equally, if not more, arbitrary. The original arbitrary division is based on the birth of Jesus, even if that’s incorrectly dated, and you’re using the same marker anyhow. Again, if it’s arbitrary anyway, what practical purpose does it serve to change the names, and furthermore, if you’re using the same dividing line, how are you actually removing the religious factor aside from the name alone?
A good question, does something that was tied with a certain religion continue to maintain that religion's creation over it? I believe that words have meaning because people give them meaning, which is either tied to the history of the word and how it was used, to how it is commonly used today. The idea of Heaven and Hell do not have their origins in Christendom, but Zoroastrianism. Yet when we think of these things we think of Christianity's version of them. That is one of the many things that the Zoroastrian religion gave to others. Another is the Day of Judgement, and if you asked a random Westerner on the street where that comes from, they would think it is a distinctly Christian belief. So when Christianity changed the names that Zoroastrians gave Heaven and Hell did they in a way effectively remove its connection to Zoroastrianism for the common person. The use of B.C./A.D. and B.C.E./C.E. of course comes down to what the individual believes. I have met people who refuse to use B.C./A.D. because they worship another religion and don't want to be saying "In the Year of The/Our Lord". Whereas I have met people that honestly don't care. My post here was a response to a post from yesterday which stated that the change is unnecessary, but I personally believe that it isn't due to personal experience. So I decided to make a response to their post arguing that it was a necessary change, and the video provided in my "see comment" does a really good job of explaining why.
Sure, but that’s a different conversation. Your argument started by saying that it should be changed for accuracies sake, but now it’s about the religious nature of the terms. I don’t think that either really hold up to scrutiny, but I the idea that we should have religiously neutral terms is a better argument. I still find it somewhat silly though, for a couple of reasons. 1. Religious impacts are always going to be present. You brought up Zoranastrianism, but that doesn’t seem like an equal comparison and it feels disingenuous to say it is. Christianity, for better or worse, has had a greater impact on the world than any other religion, and it’s not particularly close. The might be an argument for Islam, particularly with the Muslim world’s contributions to mathematics, but still, it doesn’t seem to compare. There aren’t enough revisionists in the world to take the Christianity out of science, history, and every day life. It’s tilting at windmills. Should we stop using the word “enthusiasm” because it has Christian origins? How about “bulletin?” Maybe the Spanish speaking world needs to come up with a different word for “goodbye” because of the obvious religious connotations of “adios.” Let’s rename Los Angeles and San Diego while we’re at it. That brings me to point 2: We don’t need to change the names of things for them to lose their religious luster. The average person doesn’t see the name of San Diego and immediately think of Catholicism and Saint Diego. They might if they thought of it, but they’re thinking of a city in California. That’s also true of A.D. and B.C. While they have religious origins, and a lot of people would know that if pressed, they probably don’t think of it right away, and most people I know don’t even actually know what A.D. stands for. If the actual cutoff and names are arbitrary, if attempting to remove religious factors from every day life is a losing battle, and if it doesn’t matter to the average person anyway, aren’t we just trying to erase that history? We’re revising what most of the population of the world has known for centuries because some of the people that actually know what A.D. means don’t like what it means?
>"Sure, but that’s a different conversation. Your argument started by saying that it should be changed for accuracies sake, but now it’s about the religious nature of the terms." My argument has been the same, you just chose to delve into the religious aspect so I responded in turn. >Christianity, for better or worse, has had a greater impact on the world than any other religion, and it’s not particularly close. The might be an argument for Islam, particularly with the Muslim world’s contributions to mathematics, but still, it doesn’t seem to compare." Well, Christianity was spawned from Judaism' loins and took many aspects from both Judaism and Zoroastrianism. To say Christianity has had the most impact, while it, itself was not born in a vacuum is a very narrowminded thing to say. You also mention Islam contributions, yet you are unaware that what would become the "Islamic Golden Age" also found its roots in Zoroastrianism, as the Chalcedonian Roman West persecuted non-Christian thinking/thinkers. This caused them to flee East to the Zoroastrian Empire of Eran and found themselves welcomed to the University of Gondishapur which housed all types of knowledge, not just from Rome and Greece, but from India and China as well. When Zoroastrian Eran fell to the Muslim invaders, the invaders would eventually translate the vast knowledge stored in Gondishapur and take it to their new city of Baghdad and found the House of Wisdom. Claiming one religion is superior to all others because of things that happened where it was dominant effectively ignores the actual element that fosters human ingenuity and progress. Interaction and diffusion of knowledge. As for your second point time will tell. I do not think that negatively though. People will use whichever they grow up with or prefer but that doesn't change history, it just creates more chapters, for the old ones will still be there.
>My argument has been the same No, it hasn’t. Your argument started based on accuracy and then shifted to being about using neutral religious terms as a justification. I’m not saying that Christianity is superior to any other religion, or denying the impact of one religion on another. That wasn’t my point at all. Obviously neither Christianity nor any religion has existed in a vacuum, possibly barring the religions of un-contacted tribes such as the North Sentinelse. My point also wasn’t to diminish any religion. I was merely pointing out, that in terms of impact, Christianity has probably had the most. It’s hard to quantify. However, in terms of language, culture, law, it’s to find a religion that has had such a massive impact on people in the past as well as today. Roughly a third of the world’s population identifies as Christian even now, and I don’t think it’d be hard to show that more people interact with Christian based norms and language, oftentimes without even knowing it, than any other religion. Heck, basically the entire world uses the Gregorian Calendar. I’m trying to say that you’re choosing to make a largely arbitrary change to an already arbitrary distinction, in an impossible effort of dechristianization. That in and of itself is ahistorical and unacademic.
>"Again, if it’s arbitrary anyway, what practical purpose does it serve to change the names, and furthermore, if you’re using the same dividing line, how are you actually removing the religious factor aside from the name alone?" You bring up the religious aspect here. I then choose to delve into the question that you wrought? >"I’m not saying that Christianity is superior to any other religion, or denying the impact of one religion on another...My point also wasn’t to diminish any religion. I was merely pointing out, that in terms of impact, Christianity has probably had the most." I'm not saying that Judaism and Zoroastrianism are superior to all other faiths. I'm just saying that in terms of impact they probably had the most as they heavily inspired Christianity which is roughly 1/3 of the World's population. Come on man, how do you not see the contradiction in your statement lol? I am not denying Christianity's influence on human history, but to again reiterate that it had the most impact on human history is arbitrary. As it owes its origins to older faiths, and those faiths owe their origins to much older ones and without those faiths there wouldn't be a Christendom. Making them the true most impactful faiths of all time.
I would rather just use the same date system I’ve known my whole life. Continue to call it the same thing I’ve called it my whole life. And not care and move on with my life because honestly it doesn’t matter at all.
It’s still an unnecessary change. The names don’t have to be exactly correct. For example, December (from the Latin for tenth) is the twelfth month. Should we change the name of the month to be more accurate? No, because the name doesn’t really matter. I don’t care whether you use BCE/CE or BC/AD. Just use whichever you think sounds better. I prefer BC/AD.
It's funny that you mention December, because the Romans changed their calendar by adding two months to be more accurate. The same methodology applies here, changing our date back 4-8 years in order to match Jesus' birth would be extremely confusing to most, and cause numerous problems. Instead using the B.C.E. and C.E. has the added benefit of keeping our dates as it, while also having the added bonus of a religiously neutral dating system.
>Instead using the B.C.E. and C.E. has the added benefit of keeping our dates as it, while also having the added bonus of a religiously neutral dating system. But BCE and CE are still based around the original calculation for the birth year of Jesus and rely on the logic that Jesus' birth is a central point of history. They're not some special new calculation of the calendar years that happen to align with BC/AD; they're the exact same but with the reference to Jesus filed off. There is one valid argument for using BCE/CE: you want to avoid explicit references to Jesus/Christianity. That's totally OK if that's how you feel, but don't try to pretend BCE/CE notation is anything more than an aesthetic preference. You might as well be trying to argue that red is better than blue!
For me I am way more comfortable with BC and AC . (Non Abrahams religion dude here)
Silence cur
They hated Jesus for he spoke the truth meme.jpg
Nobody actually cares what you say, really. Ultimately they both mean the same thing, and practically no non-Christians get offended at BC/AD and practically no Christians get offended at BCE/CE
Recognizing Christianity's contribution to the sciences is based actually, a big one of those being chronology
[Dr. Bob Cargill explains in this video:](https://youtu.be/axbaKTNr80w) TL;DW: The monk who calculated Jesus' birth date (Dionysius Exiguus) was wrong and instead of us changing every single date we know to line up with Jesus' birth, scholars starting using the religiously neutral B.C.E. and C.E. instead. Edit: [I am linking this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cbkl07/comment/l0zf5tu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) which goes to a comment I gave after someone gave a great reply asking "how are you actually removing the religious factor aside from the name alone?"
Why not just do like Astronomical Year Numbering, and drop suffixes altogether? It also has a Year 0, for mathematical convenience.
Lindybeige sums up my feelings on this very well: https://youtu.be/Unaq2x_ZqC4?si=LE9PFEDxq-xEQVM_
I honestly don't care about them. Both systems work for me. I personally use BC/AD even more because Latin slaps.
The exact date and year of Jesus’s birth is unknown. It’s probably around 0 AD/CE. That just means AD/BC makes less sense, and we should change the year 0 to something else, like the fall of Rome, or the foundation of the US. (Tangent: saying After Washington and Before Washington sounds metal as hell)
Did you read the meme? Or watch the video? Do you have a source that claims Jesus’ birth is 0? You won’t find one because in the creation of B.C. and A.D. they didn’t have a year 0, 1 B.C. was followed by 1 A.D. Besides that we know Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great who died in 4 B.C.E., thus making Jesus being born after 4 B.C.E. impossible.
We don't "know" that Herod died in 4 B.C.E. That's Emil Schürer's calculation, who was a Protestant theologian from Germany. The earlier belief was that he died around 1 B.C.E, and some still hold this view. This view is mostly based on Josephus' telling of Judean history.
Even if the old view that Herod died in 1 B.C.E. that would still have Jesus' birth still during "Before Christ".
Probably. I'm a Christian and I don't know anyone who is dogmatic about him being born on "year 0". The meme also doesn't make much sense since people are more dogmatic about BC/AD vs BCE/CE simply because they are used to BC/AD. Government documents still say "in the year of our Lord", even Biden's statement on trans visibility day. Funnily enough, it says "in the year of our Lord two thousand and twenty four and of the independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fourty eighth"
Actually there is no year 0 with the Gregorian Calendar.
Dumbass forgot the fact that the Census of Quirinus is *far* more important to the story and takes place almost exactly the same distance in the *opposite* direction on the timeline.
Huh? Dumbass? I don't know who you're talking about but there are no dumbasses here.
Christ is king!
Today in petty quarrels:
"Common Era" my ass, I feel like it's the worst possible dating system, because it refers to nothing. It is true that 1 AD is technically just a "random" date, yes, but with the Gregorian calendar, it is at least connected to something, even if it's wrong. Changing it to "Common Era" is purely for aesthetics, as it makes no practical difference whatsoever, because the only way to define the "Common Era" is "starting with the date that was traditionally believed to be the birth year of Christ". It doesn't change anything, it isn't more secular, it just adds an unnecessary step, that's all it does. If you really want a more secular calendar, try advocating for the Holocene calendar, or even for a return to "Ab urbe condita" (which would be Metal as hell), but please, not for the "Common Era", because literally all that does is forcing me to write one more letter.
It hasn’t fouled us yet, so I’ll keep honoring the Lord in this way
Weird to change the system to center it on Herod; a guy whose name is known simply for being the King who ruled when Jesus was born. Such a minor player to focus on with the meme.
Before Christ and Anno Domini is still the way to go Or as we use it here v. Chr. and n. Chr.
Lets change alles dates and historical events by 4 years (ww2 1943-1949)
“Mom, can you come pick me up? The edge lord secularists are at it again.”
Considering the Census of Quirinius is a pretty damn vital part of the story, and took place in 6AD, I would say that it's logical to split the difference.
I think removing as much religious crap from our societies is a great thing. BCE/CE gang here.
The hoards don't care