What else are they going to take Christ out of???

[trinityisunity]

Sitting through a church history lecture the other day, the lecturer said it is now common for the terms B.C. and A.D. to be replaced by B.C.E and C.E.(Before Common Era and Common Era respectively). I then saw in a text book that this was the case. I am upset by this, maybe I am easily upset, but I really think that secular people are trying to remove Christ from histroy. Christ has already been pushed to the side at Christmas by a fat man in a red suit and a fluffy big rabbit at Easter what next, they take B.C. and A.D. and get rid of them. Not on my assignment papers, I refuse to adopt this new common era replacement over the history changing Lord Jesus Christ. Any others noticed this?:sigh:

[Margim]

Actually, to be fair, Christmas was already a celebration (including family meals and gift giving, although with a different name) before it was a Chrsitian celebration, and the easter bunny, easter buns and coloured eggs all go back to pre-Christian fertility festivals.

As for BCE and CE, I actually don't have issues with their use especially in the history subjects (Muslim and Jewish) that I've been studying for the last 5 or so years... for obvious reasons. There is admittedly something almost 'petty' when the whole dating system is still based around Christ's birth anyway, but I understand their reasons for changing the names as far as its relevance for their own religious beliefs goes.

That being said, neither way bothers me. I tend to use BCE and CE in academic essays.

[HumbleMan]

I was saddened, but not suprised when I first started seeing BCE and CE. Academia, in it's pursuit of being perceived neutral, has taken a reference based on the single most important event, an event that changed the world, and claimed it for themselves.

I still use AD and BC, and no one has called me on it, or told me I was a neanderthal. I will teach my children to use both, as I don't think the world is going to go backwards, but I still want them to know why there's a division in the "era"s.

[ZiSunka]

More and more Christian books that cross my desk are using BCE and CE instead of BC and AD. It's not surprising so much that academic books use those terms, but for Christian books by Christian authors published by Christian publishers---well, that is shocking and confusing.

[Monica02]

I am actually upset with the new notation but I wonder why they still use the approxomate year of the birth of Christ as the dividing time between the two "eras"? If they really wanted to wipe out Christ shouldn't they also have a new reference point? I will bet that is next.

[arunma]

Sitting through a church history lecture the other day, the lecturer said it is now common for the terms B.C. and A.D. to be replaced by B.C.E and C.E.(Before Common Era and Common Era respectively). I then saw in a text book that this was the case. I am upset by this, maybe I am easily upset, but I really think that secular people are trying to remove Christ from histroy. Christ has already been pushed to the side at Christmas by a fat man in a red suit and a fluffy big rabbit at Easter what next, they take B.C. and A.D. and get rid of them. Not on my assignment papers, I refuse to adopt this new common era replacement over the history changing Lord Jesus Christ. Any others noticed this?:sigh:

Eh, it doesn't really bother me too much. If I'm not mistaken, I think it was Christian theologians who invented this new notation (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). The secular world is...well, secular. As such, it wouldn't really concern me too much if Christianity were completely eliminated from common secular reference. It might even be good for the church, since it would cause us to stop treating our faith as civic religion, and force us to strain even harder towards the goal of attaining the resurrection from the dead.

The Christmas and Easter issues do concern me, however. Christmas, as it is celebrated by Christians, ought not to give any notice to the fat man in the red suit. I'm sure the real Saint Nicholas would be very disappointed to see believing Christians giving more attention to him than to Christ. Yes, Christmas has become a secular holiday in the secular world. But I'm surprised that Santa Claus get so much noteriety in Christian homes. The day should be used to focus on the birth of Christ.

I suppose Easter isn't as big of an issue, since Christ and his resurrection tend to receive more attention on that day. But we ought to make certain that this most important holy day does not go the way of Christmas.

[MrJim]

Why be surprised when the thin veneer of American Christendom is finally stripped away? It really wasn't that effective anyhow, and gives the church the opportunity to correct the former's malfunctions.

"Much misnamed Christianity is merely man domesticated by Christian tradition." Richard Halverson, former US Senate Chaplain

[seebs]

I am fine with either. Changing the year number would be too much of a hassle, but there's no obvious reason to expect non-Christians to write "Anno Domini" when they neither speak Latin nor believe that the year has anything to do with any lord.

Perhaps more interestingly, I could see a basis for Christians disliking that terminology, as the year number is almost certainly wrong. :P

[Margim]

Perhaps more interestingly, I could see a basis for Christians disliking that terminology, as the year number is almost certainly wrong. :P

Took the words right out of my mouth...

[Andyman_1970]

"Much misnamed Christianity is merely man domesticated by Christian tradition." Richard Halverson, former US Senate Chaplain

Excellent quote..................:thumbsup:

[IisJustMe]

There is admittedly something almost 'petty' when the whole dating system is still based around Christ's birth anywayAncient scribes used the king's reign to measure time. Every time a monarch died, and a his son or his murderer ascended, it was year One again. Why isn't it appropriate to divide time according to the birth of the King of kings, and the Lord of lords? To Muslims, its year 1427, as measured from Muhammed's migration from Mecca to Medina. Should we use their measurement, to avoid offending them? I will continue to unashamedly use BC and AD, and if the academics I deal with (I'm a Christian counselor dealing with a secular world of parole and probation officers and their social worker-degreed superiors who refer addicts and compulsives to me for detox and treatment) don't like it, tough.

[IisJustMe]

I am actually upset with the new notation but I wonder why they still use the approxomate year of the birth of Christ as the dividing time between the two "eras"? If they really wanted to wipe out Christ shouldn't they also have a new reference point? I will bet that is next.We don't quite have it right, anyway (it was probably 3 BC, in September) so they can laugh behind their hands thinking "stupid Christians" and go ahead and use our wrong date.

[IisJustMe]

Eh, it doesn't really bother me too much. If I'm not mistaken, I think it was Christian theologians who invented this new notation (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

From this it appears that, while the phrase "common era" first appears in some Christian writings, it was a secondary, clarifying reference from an obscure and outdate term "vulgar era." Obviously the academics of the last 100 years have latched onto it as a "preferred term" over making reference to the Lord in Whom they do not believe.

"According to Peter Daniels (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Daniels&action=edit) (a Cornell University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University) and University of Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago) trained linguist): 'CE and BCE came into use in the last few decades, perhaps originally in Ancient Near Eastern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Eastern) studies, where (a) there are many Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish) scholars and (b) dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant. It is indeed a question of sensitivity.'

"However, the term 'common era' has earlier antecedents. A 1716 book by English Bishop John Prideaux (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Prideaux&action=edit) says, 'The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation.' In 1835, in his book Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Campbell), wrote 'The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days.' In its article on Chronology, the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia) uses the sentence: 'Foremost among these (dating eras) is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar) or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living.'

" 'Vulgar' comes from the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) word vulgāris (from vulgus, the common people), meant 'of or belonging to the common people, everyday,' and acknowledges that the date was commonly used, even by people who did not believe that Jesus was divine. By the late 1800s, however, vulgar had come to mean 'crudely indecent' and the Latin word was replaced by its English equivalent, 'common.'

"The first known Jewish use of this practice is from an inscription on a gravestone in a Jewish cemetery in Plymouth, England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth%2C_England), This inscription uses the Hebrew calendar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar) (5585), but ends by providing the common year (1825); presumably the "VE" means "Vulgar Era", and presumably VE was used instead of AD in order to avoid the Christian implications. 'Here is buried his honour Judah ben his honour Joseph, a prince and honoured amongst philanthropists, who executed good deeds, died in his house in the City of Bath, Tuesday, and was buried here on Sunday, 19 Sivan in the year 5585. In memory of Lyon Joseph Esq (merchant of Falmouth, Cornwall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falmouth%2C_Cornwall)). who died at Bath June AM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Mundi) 5585/VE 1825. Beloved and respected.' "