BS: BC.............BCE!!!

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 02:59 PM

Like James Kunen, I find that most issues fall into two categories......."Mildly Amusing" and "Pain in the Ass." This one barely made the first for me awhile back but now has fallen quickly into the latter.

I live here in Bumpkinland and not one person in 200 would have any idea what the hell this was all about and if they did would attribute it to a Communist plot or Obama. I can't even think back to the last time either here at the 'Cat or in 3D where I had the occasion to say anything besides "Twenty-Eleven" unless it was "Twenty-SomethingElse"............

On the other hand, I would use it happily just to piss off a few folks but like a joke you have to explain, there's no point. When you make some wonderfully disparaging remark about religion that no one gets, it takes all the fun out of it..........except the part where the fun is having a laugh because they DON'T get it!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 02:15 PM

I'm more comfortable with "BEC"

..before Eddie Cochran...

That reminds me of a time when I saw Lord Sutch & the Savages in Barnet, maybe 1963, and the Savages were playing My way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N9OCGJgWu4

they were doing the bit at 1min 33 sec as I walked in, guitars in the air with pounding bass - magic!!

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Raedwulf
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 02:00 PM

Well, the answer would be if you felt a god you believe in was being treated disrespectfully, and I don't see why the number of gods in the religion affects that.

Allow me to expand, then, and hopefully give you a better answer (I speak only for myself, of course)....

If I believe in God, and you say something against God, you must be wrong. If you say something that I consider offensive, therefore I must be offended. Which leads to protesting.

However, as I believe in gods, I believe that my way of talking to my gods is the right way. I can also accept that, if you have a different way of talking to the same gods, that way works for you. When we're all dead perhaps we'll know for sure who was right.

Now I run across someone who doesn't talk to my gods at all. Well, mine is not the only way, right? This is where the monotheists run into a brick wall - their god is the only, all-powerful, all-knowing god, so anything that isn't... isn't.

I could get exercised about the way you perceive and the way you represent my gods. But maybe I misunderstood you, or you misunderstood me? Shouldn't we talk first and find out? Most pagan pantheons boil down to nature worship and, if you really want to reduce it to the minimum, Sky-father - Earth-mother. So we've probably got more in common than otherwise & hurting each other is not going to impress anyone.

Now, I don't suggest that paganism & tolerance go hand-in-hand. With the example I've already given, you can see that pagans are quite as capable of being as utterly bloody stupid as anyone else! ;-) However, I think you'll also agree that a religion / philosophy that says "This is my way; what's yours?" is more accomodating than one that says "MY way is the ONLY way".

As far as I'm concerned if you're being disrespctful to my gods, you're either ignorant, which is not your fault, or you're deliberately being offensive. In which latter case, I will take great delight in pissing you off by laughing in your face and refusing to take offence. (Yes, I fight dirty...) ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 10:27 AM

How about BRT--Before Rag-Time. Before Rag-Time America's music was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the Sprit of Apollo brooded over the waters listlessly plucking his lyre saying, "I can't get anything out of this but predictable crap. Let there be ragged timing to inject a little bomp in the bomp-sha-bomp-sha-bomp." And it God created Rag-Time and God saw that it was happenin'.

Now THAT is a holy writ!

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 10:00 AM

Well you all have your serious hangups!

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 08:17 AM

As to the Thor film, why would we protest?
Well, the answer would be if you felt a god you believe in was being treated disrespectfully, and I don't see why the number of gods in the religion affects that. Anyway, this is a side issue to the main thread, and thanks for your explanation of how some of the branches interrelate.

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Raedwulf
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 08:01 AM

The american version labels themselves as Asatru, I believe. The UK version suffered a rather ridiculous schism about 20 years ago when Heimgest sent a letter to Ingvar "excommunicating" him. Which I read & laughed at (yes, I'm a pagan of that particular stripe). They split into "Runic" & "Eddaic" strands after that i.e. one was more interested in the magic, the other in the philosophy. I rather lost interest in either because it was all so damn daft. The gods will decide who they talk to, not some bloke, however puffed up with pride he be!

As to the Thor film, why would we protest? This is one of the fundamental differences between pagan & montheist faith (and also fundamental to why monotheism was able to stage such a successful takeover). We already believe in many gods. You've got another one? Fine. You follow yours your way; we'll follow ours our way. Pagans are pretty tolerant. It's the monotheists that take offence because you aren't doing things The One True Way!

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 04:37 AM

[To be more precise, I was perfectly aware of pagan communities of many different types, but have never come across one that adopts the Asgard deities. There may well be such groups, but so far they've stayed beyond my awareness.]

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 04:34 AM

You're not aware that there's a sizeable pagan community worldwide then, DMcG? Of many different stripes, believing in many of the older pantheons?
Good point, which I freely admit I'd overlooked. On the other hand I haven't read of them blockading the release of the new 'Thor' film, so maybe they are not easily offended!

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 12:50 AM

I'm more comfortable with "BEC"

..before Eddie Cochran...

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 12:49 AM

Damn straight!

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 12:46 AM

Nail on head, josepp. BC is exclusice, BCE inclusive.

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 12:14 AM

Since I use "CE" I also use "BCE" because I absolutely will not use "AD" or "Year of Our Lord." He may be your lord but he ain't mine.

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Nov 11 - 11:27 PM

E Pluribus unum!

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Raedwulf
Date: 26 Nov 11 - 02:44 PM

Surely the difference is precisely that no-one believes in Woden and Thor

You're not aware that there's a sizeable pagan community worldwide then, DMcG? Of many different stripes, believing in many of the older pantheons?

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Nov 11 - 01:05 PM

Far be it from me, Stilly, to object to you starring in "Groundhog Day Take Two". By all measns, have at it-

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Nov 11 - 12:28 PM

Face it, only Sunday and Monday really make any sense to we moderns.

But if we went all the way with Bobert's recommendation, how would I remember that Septem-ber is the seventh month, Octo-ber is the eighth, Novem-ber the ninth, and Decem-ber is the tenth month?

(or has that been changed too?)

John

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Nov 11 - 11:36 AM

DMcG offers the closest response to BWL I would offer - The days of the week after Norse/Pagan gods are charming relics of human belief history, but the caustic environment in the world that is churned up by the angry response to christianity suggests that using something that neutralizes the date, even if it still emanates from that general time and occurrence in the Middle East more or less 2000 years ago.

Greg F, stuff a sock in it. If you don't like the topic of a particular thread, then don't bother with it and don't fuss at those who do want to rehash the subject.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Nov 11 - 09:06 AM

Jeezis Christ, not this tempest in a piss-pot all over again!

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Nov 11 - 04:20 AM

The other five days are named after myths none of us believe in.
...
yeah...Bee-dubya-ell has a certain point, but there no need to change 'traditional' names of that sort
....
But what's the difference, Bill? Weekdays after gods and years after Christ - seems to put them on more-or-less equal footing

Surely the difference is precisely that no-one believes in Woden and Thor, so the term can't offend as it now lacks any religious connotation, but plenty of people believe in Christ, so it can?   But it seems a little over-sensitive to me to take offence over such a thing: save your anger for things like Joe mentioned, such as courtrooms and schools. Personally, I'd write BC most of the time, but in more formal situations I'd write BCE, since that's the academic convention. No great issue, it's no more of a problem than adopting an agreed style for references, starting papers with an abstract and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Bert
Date: 26 Nov 11 - 04:07 AM

Oh for Christ Sake!!!

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: EBarnacle
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 11:47 PM

Or you could just go to CE.

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:37 PM

But what's the difference, Bill? Weekdays after gods and years after Christ - seems to put them on more-or-less equal footing.

Maybe it's best to say that both are part of our tradition, though possibly not now part of our faith - and then not worry about it.

Same with "negro" spirituals and Stephen Foster songs and so many other things that are not "correct" thinking any more - why purge the past?

But keep your commandments out of our courtrooms and your prayers out of our schools, please - that's where I draw the line.

"In God We Trust"? I suppose I could go either way on that, although I tend to think we'd be better off not displaying it in government buildings or on government-issued coins. I keep thinking it's a fundamentalist God they're talking about, a God who wouldn't vote Democratic.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:13 PM

and, yeah...Bee-dubya-ell has a certain point, but there no need to change 'traditional' names of that sort. We just need to learn HOW they became traditional.

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:10 PM

Amen... ummm right on, SRS!


"Christ", as I understand it, who or whatever he was, was not named Christ. He was just called Jesus. There might well have been someone of that name who got famous thru preaching....and various circumstances led to a dating system named for what people THOUGHT he was.

Now that various opinions about what we ought to do about religion and thinking about religion are supposedly protected, it IS about time to s-l-o-w-l-y take the religious implications out of that dating system....especially since it is widely agreed that that Jesus fellow wasn't actually born in the year 'zero', anyhow.

   I still write 2011 on what few checks I write, and I don't expect that to be changed, but BCE does need to be clarified as a public designation, no matter what folks say in their personal church groups.

I do NOT like the idea that ANY nation should make a specific religious belief a political requirement, and though some will no doubt continue that way for awhile, I do not want the US of A to go any further that way!

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 07:56 PM

I like your thinking, Bee-dubya-ell. It would be a good justification for this (click and sing)....

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 06:37 PM

Hell, if we're gonna take Christ's name out of the dating system, let's get those pagan deities' names out of the days of the week while we're at it! I don't believe in Thor, so why should I have to acknowledge him by calling the fifth day of the week Thursday? Face it, only Sunday and Monday really make any sense to we moderns. The sun and moon are still relevant to our experience. The other five days are named after myths none of us believe in. They need new names.

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Bainbo
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 05:32 PM

Some BBC presenters refer to this years as two-thousand-and eleven, some as twenty-eleven. I have no difficulty understanding either term.

So I don't really mind, either, whether people feel more comfortable using BC or BCE. I understand them both.

I go for twenty-eleven and BC. But I can't say it bothers me when other people use the alternatives. You say potato ...

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: BTNG
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 01:58 PM

This world of ours, for good or ill, is not made up of one single religious group, though Christian and Islamic leaders often wish there were (theirs). Uncle Boko, you really need to get used to that.

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 01:49 PM

I have a problem with that. And the best way to deal with it, in a practical sense, is to take Christ out of the Calendar. And that is why it's preferable to use BCE. There are other calendars in use around the world, generally based upon other births of religious leaders. The dominant one is the one in which this year is 2011, and as a practical matter, taking one religion out of everyday dealings around the world appropriate.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: GUEST,PeterC
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 01:34 PM

Properly" means you think christianity is the center of the world and all dates should emanate from the birth of the individual that most of you don't know anything about for real?

Christianity is the centre of our dating system. If you have a problem with that then today's date is 3 Frimaire CCXX

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: BTNG
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 01:33 PM

I have this sense of Déjà vu.

I thnik there too many letters, eh, Uncle Boko? *LOL*

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 12:55 PM

How could they be bending over backwards? It takes only very slight effort to pronounce BCE. I can do it without bending at all.

But I suppose there will always some people who object to making even that slight effort.

Like my father, for whom "Negro" was more difficult to pronounce than his habitual term "nigger."

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 10:51 AM

Here's one thread, EBarnacle, with links outward to other discussions.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 10:44 AM

"Properly" means you think christianity is the center of the world and all dates should emanate from the birth of the individual that most of you don't know anything about for real?

Before the Common Era is more acceptable to people who aren't christians and is more suitable in a world where it is not the only religion around.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm:

Of course, one has the option of interpreting the letter "C" in CE and BCE as referring to "Christian" or "Christ's," in place of "common." "CE" then becomes "Christian Era." "BCE" becomes "Before the Christian Era." The Abbreviations Dictionary does exactly this. 1 The "C" has also been interpreted as "Current."

Use your imagination if you don't like it, but for many of us it has been a long time coming and is most welcome.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: EBarnacle
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 10:41 AM

There was an earlier thread beating the distinction to death.

Subject: BS: BC.............BCE!!!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 10:27 AM

On BBC Radio 4 "In our Time" yesterday, eminent professortrixes were bending over backwards to ensure dates were "BCE". Thank goodness our Melvyn Bragg had the good sense to refer to properly refer to dates as being "BC".