P.C. scholars take Christ out of B.C.

[Jimreaper007]

Quoted from the Washington Times article

ALBANY, N.Y. -- In certain precincts of a world encouraged to embrace differences, Christ is out. The terms "B.C." and "A.D." increasingly are shunned by certain scholars. Educators and historians say schools from North America to Australia have been changing the terms "Before Christ," or B.C., to "Before Common Era," or B.C.E., and "anno Domini" (Latin for "in the year of the Lord") to "Common Era." In short, they're referred to as B.C.E. and C.E.

Source (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050425-122707-1314r.htm)


I do not believe this is an attack on religion. I believe this is called the continuing evolution of the species. As hard as it is to believe their were other important things happening before and after Christ that we could use to measure time/epoch passage. I do not believe our measuring of epochs has to be based upon religious events. Considering BC and AD have Catholic roots, those of us who are not Catholic may have a problem with this measurement. IMO If we can title the epochs something non-religious then it is based more on human progressive milestones rather than something that is grounds for more religious arguments.

I compare this problem to math. Math is a universal language that everyone can understand. If we switch to something universal then people everywhere will be able to understand and identify with it. I watched a show the other day on the History channel where the majority of people believed that lightning was God expressing anger with lightning bolts shooting from his eyes. That was a very common belief until Benjamin Franklin proved otherwise. IMO we have some very silly beliefs that we are stilling clinging tightly too just because someone told us to believe them and not question anything. Our evolution continues with or without religion...

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Man, I was confused for a second there. I thought you were talking about Boston College.

[Jimreaper007]

Man, I was confused for a second there. I thought you were talking about Boston College.

:lol1:

Someone has the BC Eagles on the brain.

[RedskinsDave]

I will be changing the name of Monday to TDIHTM (The day I hate the most). This is not an attack on Monday, it is just more accurate. :rolleyes:

[lakewinola]

I will be changing the name of Monday to TDIHTM (The day I hate the most). This is not an attack on Monday, it is just more accurate. :rolleyes:

I second

[Jimreaper007]

What Roman Emporer was responsible for naming the days of the week?

:D

[akhhorus]

BCE has been in common usage in academic books for a long time. This is nothing new.

[Jimreaper007]

BCE has been in common usage in academic books for a long time. This is nothing new.

According to the Washington Times this is a big deal. ;)

[RedskinsDave]

Considering BC and AD have Catholic roots, those of us who are not Catholic may have a problem with this measurement.

Considering the abbreviations mean before Christ and after the lord, I fail to see why not being Catholic makes a difference. I also think it's a joke to say that taking "Christ" and "Domini" is not a shot at Christianity. Of course it is.

[Spence]

Akhh's right, it isn't anything really new. I've been reading B.C.E. for years. I prefer B.C. because I don't see any need to change it. That calendar is still based on the birth of Christ and if that is offensive to someone, why would changing the nomenclature from B.C. to B.C.E. make a difference? The Hebrew dating system is religiously based. So is the Islamic dating system. There's nothing odd about B.C. and A.D. I might take these complaints a bit more seriously if those whining about them also objected to the Hebrew and Islamic systems, but I don't think that's the case very often.

Anyone who considers B.C. and A.D. an offensive religious intrusion needs to lighten up. I suggest beginning with a stern regimen of heavy pipe bashings on the skull, to be followed by a secondary regimen of heavy pipe bashings to the skull. If that doesn't work, we move on to the bigger pipes.

[SkinsKY]

I concur with Spence. Calling it something different doesn't change the foundation of calendars. Calendar makers worldwide are panicking, cats and dogs living together. Mass hysteria! I've seen BCE for a while and I think it's just silly to change it now. It's not like the two terms have any meaningful spiritual significance. I think I will stop referring to miles because we're not Roman and the idea of 1000 paces is too much. I will refer to that distance and greater as "I'd be better off driving." I could care less if scholars change it, but I will probably refer to it just the same as I always have.

[bwparker]

I am not religious.

I have no specific problem with the new name. I don't see any reason for the christians to be offended. If anything the name is in someway Christian biased and this makes it more nuetral. However...

I am an "if its not broke don't fix it" type of person. Where is the need for this change? Are there people who were offended? I don't think most people know what A.D. stands for, let alone what its translation means. This is rocking the boat simply for the sake of rocking the boat. A total waste of time and money.

...But its not my time or my money...so let them have their fun. I could care less.

[Jimreaper007]

Considering the abbreviations mean before Christ and after the lord, I fail to see why not being Catholic makes a difference. I also think it's a joke to say that taking "Christ" and "Domini" is not a shot at Christianity. Of course it is.


Must be tough thinking everyone is out to get you/your faith all the time. I think the scholars are just trying to make it acceptable to everyone. Why do the epochs need to be affiliated at all with any religion.

Like Spence said, all the religions have their on dating/calender systems. We also know that religion is the biggest source of tension, anger and confusion known to man so why move towards something less provocative?

And you can personally still call it whatever you want....

[Ibleedburgundy]

Akhh's right, it isn't anything really new. I've been reading B.C.E. for years. I prefer B.C. because I don't see any need to change it. That calendar is still based on the birth of Christ and if that is offensive to someone, why would changing the nomenclature from B.C. to B.C.E. make a difference? The Hebrew dating system is religiously based. So is the Islamic dating system. There's nothing odd about B.C. and A.D. I might take these complaints a bit more seriously if those whining about them also objected to the Hebrew and Islamic systems, but I don't think that's the case very often.

Anyone who considers B.C. and A.D. an offensive religious intrusion needs to lighten up. I suggest beginning with a stern regimen of heavy pipe bashings on the skull, to be followed by a secondary regimen of heavy pipe bashings to the skull. If that doesn't work, we move on to the bigger pipes.


Warning: please don't read this post if athiest opinions offend you.

So you don't see why an athiest would not want to measure time based on the life of Jesus Christ? We don't believe he is the son of god, or that his mother was a virgin, or that he died for our sins, so why would we embrace him being the hallmark of time? That's quite confusing to our children, when Christians run around trying to tell our children about heaven, hell, Noah's ark, Satan, people walking on water, Adam and Eve, the Earth is 5,000 years old and created in 7 days, evolution is false, etc. Frankly, there isn't an ounce of truth in any of it.

Religious folks will use any means to spread their beliefs (Government, Tsunami relief influence on orphaned muslim children, pledge of allegiance-quite opportunistic, the ends justify the means. Doesn't matter HOW you bring someone to Christ as long as you get them there. So if you bring toddlers to Christ by telling them they will burn in eternal hell otherwise [brainwashing] then you are a good person) and to use the CALENDER AS VINDICATION of Christianity is just another method. I'll use B.C.E. and those of you who are Christians can keep using B.C.

[RedskinsDave]

Must be tough thinking everyone is out to get you/your faith all the time. I think the scholars are just trying to make it acceptable to everyone. Why do the epochs need to be affiliated at all with any religion.

Like Spence said, all the religions have their on dating/calender systems. We also know that religion is the biggest source of tension, anger and confusion known to man so why move towards something less provocative?

And you can personally still call it whatever you want....

Dude, you mentioned Catholicism, not me. You're the one who thinks the calendar is somehow affiliated with the Catholic church. Must be tough not having a clue.

What is not acceptable to everyone? Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. If the abbreviations were BCDYPS (Before Christ Die You Pagan Scum) and ADIYDBYWD (Anno Domini If You Don't Believe You Will Die) then maybe change would be necessary. Otherwise, it's not remotely provocative.

[RedskinsDave]

Warning: please don't read this post if athiest opinions offend you.

Athiest opinions don't bother me. Paranoid diatribes on the other hand........

[Spence]

Warning: please don't read this post if athiest opinions offend you.

So you don't see why an athiest would not want to measure time based on the life of Jesus Christ? We don't believe he is the son of god, or that his mother was a virgin, or that he died for our sins, so why would we embrace him being the hallmark of time?
...
I'll use B.C.E. and those of you who are Christians can keep using B.C.Atheism doesn't offend me. Most of my immediate family is atheist and many of my close friends are atheist. I myself never attended church until I reached adulthood.

Your sentenceSo you don't see why an athiest would not want to measure time based on the life of Jesus Christ?is exactly what I was addressing in my post. You can call it B.C.E. instead of B.C. or C.E. instead of A.D., but you're still using a dating system based on the birth of Jesus Christ. You've just changed the nomenclature. Your point appears to be that you don't want to measure time according to the birth of Christ. Fine. So how does B.C.E. help? You're still measuring time according to the birth of Christ, you're just calling it something else. In other words, you are engaging in a willful act of self-deception simply because it makes you feel better.

Isn't that pretty much what atheists are supposed to dislike about religion?

[Jimreaper007]

That was why I would prefer it be measured by the other things man was doing at the time. There had to be some significant technological and other break throughs that could help those of us who are not religious get a better grasp of the timeline.

[fent]

That was why I would prefer it be measured by the other things man was doing at the time. There had to be some significant technological and other break throughs that could help those of us who are not religious get a better grasp of the timeline.

so you want to use the same time frame, but assign a new reason to it 2 millenia after the fact...not only are you facing a campaign harder than cheney in 08, but you're once again entering self-deception. history books will continue to say "the origin was Christ, but people got offended later and changed it to King Herod murdering every child two years old or younger." oops wait, the origin is still christ...nevermind...

[Ibleedburgundy]

Atheism doesn't offend me. Most of my immediate family is atheist and many of my close friends are atheist. I myself never attended church until I reached adulthood.

Your sentenceis exactly what I was addressing in my post. You can call it B.C.E. instead of B.C. or C.E. instead of A.D., but you're still using a dating system based on the birth of Jesus Christ. You've just changed the nomenclature. Your point appears to be that you don't want to measure time according to the birth of Christ. Fine. So how does B.C.E. help? You're still measuring time according to the birth of Christ, you're just calling it something else. In other words, you are engaging in a willful act of self-deception simply because it makes you feel better.

Isn't that pretty much what atheists are supposed to dislike about religion?


A "willful act of self deception?" I wouldn't call it that. Yes, B.C.E. would still be the time of the birth of christ, and I wouldn't deny that ever, it's just that I can't credit Christ with being significant enough to measure time from his death, but I don't wish to change the dates on all of history just to install a new system (I'll never go metric!). That would be too confusing so I'll use the same numbers as Christians, but I can't acknowledge Christ as being worthy of point zero on the calender if I had a choice, and apparently I do.

[bwparker]

This is a semi-serious topic...but for some reason I am find all of the posts very funny...why is that?

[Ibleedburgundy]

Maybe in the future they will measure time from the point when people shed religion and only believe in facts and science. A second and final enlightenment.

[bwparker]

Maybe in the future they will measure time from the point when people shed religion and only believe in facts and science. A second and final enlightenment.
That actually strikes we as kindof depressing.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Athiest opinions don't bother me. Paranoid diatribes on the other hand........


Yes, it was a diatribe but I don't agree that it was paranoid. Care to elaborate?

[NamVet4]

For me its a matter of BTV and ATV............. you figure it out.. I'm an old fart !
:)

[fent]

This is a semi-serious topic...but for some reason I am find all of the posts very funny...why is that?

because people have their panties in a bunch over something pointless?

[fent]

For me its a matter of BTV and ATV............. you figure it out.. I'm an old fart !
:)

my grandfather has the same one if i'm correct...were you the first one on your block with a black and white set??

[Jimreaper007]

so you want to use the same time frame, but assign a new reason to it 2 millenia after the fact...not only are you facing a campaign harder than cheney in 08, but you're once again entering self-deception. history books will continue to say "the origin was Christ, but people got offended later and changed it to King Herod murdering every child two years old or younger." oops wait, the origin is still christ...nevermind...


Agreed that religion has a strangle hold on the events of that period, but I would settle for anything at this point like the discovery of bad breath or that man could walk and chew bubble gum...

j/k

[RedskinsDave]

Religious folks will use any means to spread their beliefs (Government, Tsunami relief influence on orphaned muslim children, pledge of allegiance-quite opportunistic, the ends justify the means.

Tsunami relief? You mean all those evil Christians who gave millions of dollars to save lives? I hate them too. Just the other day, someone was nice to me and then said "God Bless". I told that old lady to take her religion and shove it up her pruny rear!! I don't need any blessings from HER God. :devil2:

[SkinsKY]

Tsunami relief? You mean all those evil Christians who gave millions of dollars to save lives? I hate them too. Just the other day, someone was nice to me and then said "God Bless". I told that old lady to take her religion and shove it up her pruny rear!! I don't need any blessings from HER God. :devil2:


Ooh yeah...How dare we give money and aid to people who have experienced a tragic disaster. Next time, I'll keep my money to myself, so I'm not one of them.

[Spence]

I'll use the same numbers as Christians, but I can't acknowledge Christ as being worthy of point zero on the calender if I had a choice, and apparently I do.Well, you don't have to officially acknowledge Christ as being worthy of point zero on the calendar if you don't wish to do so. However, by using a Christ-centric calendar, you're doing it anyway. You're just not acknowledging it.

It's like Christmas. You may not think that the birth of Christ is worthy of a holiday, but the society already made that decision. We can call it Happy Holidays or Season's Greetings or even Festivus, if we like, but it's still a holidy because the birth of Christ is celebrated on that day. [And because doing so is now necessary to propel the engine of American capitalism.]

I don't have a problem altering the nomenclature of something if it is genuinely offensive. B.C. and A.D. are just not offensive by a reasonable standard. Whether one believes in Christ as the savior and Son of God, his historical importance is undeniable. The most powerful civilization in the world is western civilization [like it or not, and I do] and Christ is by far the single most important figure in the history of western civilization.

If one does not accept Christ as divine, one has to accept him as a figure of titanic importance. Using his birth as a dating system is historically justifiable, apart from any religious belief.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Well, you don't have to officially acknowledge Christ as being worthy of point zero on the calendar if you don't wish to do so. However, by using a Christ-centric calendar, you're doing it anyway. You're just not acknowledging it.

It's like Christmas. You may not think that the birth of Christ is worthy of a holiday, but the society already made that decision. We can call it Happy Holidays or Season's Greetings or even Festivus, if we like, but it's still a holidy because the birth of Christ is celebrated on that day. [And because doing so is now necessary to propel the engine of American capitalism.]

I don't have a problem altering the nomenclature of something if it is genuinely offensive. B.C. and A.D. are just not offensive by a reasonable standard. Whether one believes in Christ as the savior and Son of God, his historical importance is undeniable. The most powerful civilization in the world is western civilization [like it or not, and I do] and Christ is by far the single most important figure in the history of western civilization.

If one does not accept Christ as divine, one has to accept him as a figure of titanic importance. Using his birth as a dating system is historically justifiable, apart from any religious belief.

Athiests celebrate Christmas because it's an American tradition. We see our families and bring them gifts. Has nothing to do with Christ for some of us. Actually, the date, December 25, was adopted from paganism. We now know that Christ was born somewhere around September or August so if Christians want to celebrate his real B-day, they should change the date.

[fent]

Athiests celebrate Christmas because it's an American tradition. We see our families and bring them gifts. Has nothing to do with Christ for some of us. Actually, the date, December 25, was adopted from paganism. We now know that Christ was born somewhere around September or August so if Christians want to celebrate his real B-day, they should change the date.

that doesn't change that it's the celebration of christ...if you can make the same deliniation there, you should have no problem doing the same for our calendar.

[Spence]

Athiests celebrate Christmas because it's an American tradition. We see our families and bring them gifts. Has nothing to do with Christ for some of us. Actually, the date, December 25, was adopted from paganism. We now know that Christ was born somewhere around September or August so if Christians want to celebrate his real B-day, they should change the date.Of course the date comes from paganism. Winter solstice traditions. The actual date isn't important. Acknowledgment of Christ is the point. But you've made my point for me. Christmas is a tradition. So is B.C. and A.D. In fact, it's an older tradition than Christmas itself.

[Booser]

has anyone ever noticed that many enlightened people preach about tolerance and respecting different views, but they do not extend that tolerance or respect to Christianity?



PS - Arabic numerals are out for me. They might not be religious, but they kind of remind me of Mohammed so i am switching... but what should we use instead? Roman numerals? Something else?

[SkinsKY]

that doesn't change that it's the celebration of christ...if you can make the same deliniation there, you should have no problem doing the same for our calendar.


Woohoo...Logic +1!

[Spence]

Guys, let's try to keep this discussion on topic: B.C. and A.D. v. B.C.E. and C.E. This is not a general discussion about the alleged defects of Christianity. If people are interested in that sort of discussion they can start a thread on it. I'll watch that very closely, though, as we have a history of flame wars when such topics are broached.

[SkinsKY]

PS - Arabic numerals are out for me. They might not be religious, but they kind of remind me of Mohammed so i am switching... but what should we use instead? Roman numerals? Something else?

I prefer to mark with tally marks.

Edit: My bad Spence. I realize I've been a main culprit of that. I certainly didn't mean to hijack the thread. I'll refrain from any posts of that nature in the thread from now on.

[fent]

PS - Arabic numerals are out for me. They might not be religious, but they kind of remind me of Mohammed so i am switching... but what should we use instead? Roman numerals? Something else?

fingers and toes...after 20 we start over.

[RedskinsDave]

XVIID CDMLII VXIDLMM.........it's not working..........

[Spence]

Edit: My bad Spence. I realize I've been a main culprit of that. I certainly didn't mean to hijack the thread. I'll refrain from any posts of that nature in the thread from now on.No, plenty of blame to go around. :)

[SkinsKY]

No, plenty of blame to go around. :)

Sweet, off the hook. ;)

[RedskinsDave]

Sweet, off the hook. ;)

You're lucky. I was just about to use it as an excuse to kill you.

[Spence]

I split this thread, obviously, so that the age of the Earth stuff has its own thread.

[swheeler]

I could be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that the calendar is probably off significantly from teh actual birth of Christ, so just like Christmas, it is an arbitrary date. Christians choose to use that arbitrary date to honor Christ. If the rest of us want to use it to define the start of a "common era", I don't think that necessarily means it still honors Christ.

In response to Spence, I disagree that all of the Xmas alternatives, siuch as Festivus, are related to Christ. You agreed that the Dec. 25th date was brought from Paganism, which goes to show that everyone feels the need to celebrate something during the cold, dark part of the year. Just because Christians decided a while back to celebrate that as well doesn't mean anyone who celebrates it from then on is "acknowledging Christ".

In response to Dave's "historical figure" argument, the "year of our lord" part kind of undermines that. If it was "before Christ" and "after Christ" I might buy that, but "anno domini" blatantly implies a Christian faith.

In response to the "Why is everyone always picking on Christians?" argument, the answer is because that's what is currently in standard usage. If all of the scholarly, political, and business world was working off a calendar based around Muhammad's birth, I would have a problem with that too, and I think some of you might as well.

Basically what it comes down to is the same way I feel about the Redskins' name. I can see the argument against it very clearly, and would not fight a change, but I don't think its a big enough deal to try to change it myself.

[BurgundyNGold]

has anyone ever noticed that many enlightened people preach about tolerance and respecting different views, but they do not extend that tolerance or respect to Christianity??

PS - Arabic numerals are out for me. They might not be religious, but they kind of remind me of Mohammed so i am switching... but what should we use instead? Roman numerals? Something else?
I don't want to hear about tolerance and Christianity. A more intolerant bunch you are not likely to find. And why not? Christianity hasn't traditonally needed tolerance. It's had the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch trials, missionaries and, when all else fails, Conquistadors to enfore church doctrine. The 1000 years known as the dark ages are generally attributed the the "forward thinking" ways of the Catholic church, largeley because of their intolerance of any view that was different from their own. Just think where we might be as a society if we had that missing 1000 years.

I think, if given the chance and religous group -- including evangelical Christians -- would choke off science and advancement to advance their own beliefs.

[Jimreaper007]

I don't want to hear about tolerance and Christianity. A more intolerant bunch you are not likely to find. And why not? Christianity hasn't traditonally needed tolerance. It's had the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch trials, missionaries and, when all else fails, Conquistadors to enfore church doctrine. The 1000 years known as the dark ages are generally attributed the the "forward thinking" ways of the Catholic church, largeley because of their intolerance of any view that was different from their own. Just think where we might be as a society if we had that missing 1000 years.

I think, if given the chance and religous group -- including evangelical Christians -- would choke off science and advancement to advance their own beliefs.

As we evolve hopefully we will not try to hang on to things that are no longer accurate or do not properly reflect our new understanding.

[RedskinsDave]

I don't want to hear about tolerance and Christianity. A more intolerant bunch you are not likely to find. And why not? Christianity hasn't traditonally needed tolerance. It's had the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch trials, missionaries and, when all else fails, Conquistadors to enfore church doctrine. The 1000 years known as the dark ages are generally attributed the the "forward thinking" ways of the Catholic church, largeley because of their intolerance of any view that was different from their own. Just think where we might be as a society if we had that missing 1000 years.

I think, if given the chance and religous group -- including evangelical Christians -- would choke off science and advancement to advance their own beliefs.

So basically since Christianity has done wrong in the past it can be crapped on all the time until you or someone else decides enough is enough. Great, I think I'll go ahead and keep pointing out that Christianity seems to be an open target while other faiths are not.

[SkinsKY]

So basically since Christianity has done wrong in the past it can be crapped on all the time until you or someone else decides enough is enough. Great, I think I'll go ahead and keep pointing out that Christianity seems to be an open target while other faiths are not.

Well sure. Don't you see how that makes sense? :rolleyes:

[swheeler]

In response to the "Why is everyone always picking on Christians?" argument, the answer is because that's what is currently in standard usage. If all of the scholarly, political, and business world was working off a calendar based around Muhammad's birth, I would have a problem with that too, and I think some of you might as well.

Looks like that needed to be said again.

[BurgundyNGold]

As we evolve hopefully we will not try to hang on to things that are no longer accurate or do not properly reflect our new understanding.
The KKK was/is a self proclaimed religiously motivated organization, Jim. So is the Taliban and Al Quaeda. Are they not recent enough?

[BurgundyNGold]

So basically since Christianity has done wrong in the past it can be crapped on all the time until you or someone else decides enough is enough. Great, I think I'll go ahead and keep pointing out that Christianity seems to be an open target while other faiths are not.
All religions are open targets. So is athiesm. This is how is should be. Only by constantly challenging ones own beliefs and indoctrinated behavior patterns can you truly learn anything about yourself and the world around you. It's called growth of the species which, in my experience, is not in the interest of religion.

I'm just saying, I don't want to hear "boo hoo" out of Christians because they're being "persecuted" with the facts of science. I'm not sorry that we don't teach Creationist propaganda in science classes. I'm not sorry if the influence of the Catholic church is on the decline. I'm not advocating their eradication or any discrimination against them -- as they would have against gays. They've had a 700+ year run of being on top, unchallenged. They should consider themselves luckier than the Incas.

[BurgundyNGold]

Looks like that needed to be said again.
All cogs in the same wheel.

[Jimreaper007]

The KKK was/is a self proclaimed religiously motivated organization, Jim. So is the Taliban and Al Quaeda. Are they not recent enough?


I am not sure what I am responding to...please clarify.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well sure. Don't you see how that makes sense? :rolleyes:
Yes, it does. History has a frightful tendency to repeat itself, unless you learn from it. All too often, folks want to keep the past in the past, leading to ignorance about past events. We are then doomed to repeat our mistakes out of our own ignorance.

While I personally might be able to forgive the attrocities of religion -- no one in particular -- I am not willing to forget. More people have died in the name of an unverifiable God than have ever been "saved" by him.

To me, the underlying requirements of religion are inherently dangerous as they require compliance by blind faith. This does not afford you the human trait of curiousity. You cannot question that which does not make sense about what you are taught. Such behavior breeds ignorance. It is the ignorance that is dangerous. Dangerous because our ignorance destines us to repeat the attrocities that you would have us all forget.

[BurgundyNGold]

I am not sure what I am responding to...please clarify.

As we evolve hopefully we will not try to hang on to things that are no longer accurate or do not properly reflect our new understanding.I assume that you were saying that the examples of religious aggression I cited were somehow no longer accurate.

[PyroGenic]

Other: Don't care.

[RedskinsDave]

Yes, it does. History has a frightful tendency to repeat itself, unless you learn from it. All too often, folks want to keep the past in the past, leading to ignorance about past events. We are then doomed to repeat our mistakes out of our own ignorance.

While I personally might be able to forgive the attrocities of religion -- no one in particular -- I am not willing to forget. More people have died in the name of an unverifiable God than have ever been "saved" by him.

To me, the underlying requirements of religion are inherently dangerous as they require compliance by blind faith. This does not afford you the human trait of curiousity. You cannot question that which does not make sense about what you are taught. Such behavior breeds ignorance. It is the ignorance that is dangerous. Dangerous because our ignorance destines us to repeat the attrocities that you would have us all forget.

Someone want to help while I kick that soapbox out from under him?

Seriously, you're off on quite a tangent here in your clear disdain for Christianity and especially the Catholic Church. If you really think that attacking Christianity will do anything more than embolden it's followers, carry on. Your pontification (pun intended) will serve nothing but your own righteousness.

[Jimreaper007]

I assume that you were saying that the examples of religious aggression I cited were somehow no longer accurate.


Oh no....very accurate my friend

I totally agreed with your post. I watch a show on WHUT on Sunday mornings called the higher truth or something to that effect and it is 4 of America's leading scientists just talking about matters of science etc.

They all agreed that we would already be permanantly settled on other planets and headed out of this solar system if not for the dark ages. Our squabbles with religion and how they hold science back at times is what they believe is our biggest obstacle to getting off this rock.

[BurgundyNGold]

Someone want to help while I kick that soapbox out from under him?

Seriously, you're off on quite a tangent here is your clear disdain for Christianity and especially the Catholic Church. If you really think that attacking Christianity will do anything more than embolden it's followers, carry on. Your pontification (pun intended) will serve nothing but your own righteousness.
Exactly what tangent would that be? I've already stated that science has proven the age of the Earth. Your level of contribution to the thread to this point has been to add in a somewhat less than witty "As old as dirt".

There are those in this thread and in this world who would have us believe that the age of the Earth is a mere 11,000 years, despite all the evidence to the contrary, all because it can be inferred from the Bible. The Bible: a book written by men, for men with countless translations and revisions along the way, the care of the New Testament of which has been entrusted to a church who was historically acted in a manner that is far different than the teachings of Christ.

Why should pointing that fact out when folks attempt to use the Bible as a basis for anything scientific somehow make me "righteous"? Perhaps because it differs from your views? Well, then, I apologize. Perhaps I should be more tolerant.

BTW, I'm not attacking Christianity any more than any other religion, I am simply using it as a relevant and visible example. I have an inherent disdain for any group that would seek to offer salvation for the masses when they themselves have no more understanding about the nature of what is than the individual at home. Anyone can open and read the Tora[h], Bible or Koran for themselves -- no interprepation necessary, although history has conveniently provided several revisions to each book (save perhaps the Koran).

[Jimreaper007]

Exactly what tangent would that be? I've already stated that science has proven the age of the Earth. Your level of contribution to the thread to this point has been to add in a somewhat less than witty "As old as dirt".

There are those in this thread and in this world who would have us believe that the age of the Earth is a mere 11,000 years, despite all the evidence to the contrary, all because it can be inferred from the Bible. The Bible: a book written by men, for men with countless translations and revisions along the way, the care of the New Testament of which has been entrusted to a church who was historically acted in a manner that is far different than the teachings of Christ.

Why should pointing that fact out when folks attempt to use the Bible as a basis for anything scientific somehow make me "righteous"? Perhaps because it differs from your views? Well, then, I apologize. Perhaps I should be more tolerant.

BTW, I'm not attacking Christianity any more than any other religion, I am simply using it as a relevant and visible example. I have an inherent disdain for any group that would seek to offer salvation for the masses when they themselves have no more understanding about the nature of what is than the individual at home. Anyone can open and read the Tora[h], Bible or Koran for themselves -- no interprepation necessary, although history has conveniently provided several revisions to each book (save perhaps the Koran).

Great post!

Well said

[RedskinsDave]

There are those in this thread and in this world who would have us believe that the age of the Earth is a mere 11,000 years, despite all the evidence to the contrary, all because it can be inferred from the Bible.

Who said that? I didn't read anyone say that. Anyways, you were somehow able to take that and twist it into a diatribe about Christianity and Catholicism. Just because you happen to BELIEVE that no one can offer salvation any more than some schmoe at home makes it no more true than a church who claims the same. Ironically most of them have the same righteous belief you have.

[swheeler]

Exactly what tangent would that be? I've already stated that science has proven the age of the Earth. Your level of contribution to the thread to this point has been to add in a somewhat less than witty "As old as dirt".

There are those in this thread and in this world who would have us believe that the age of the Earth is a mere 11,000 years, despite all the evidence to the contrary, all because it can be inferred from the Bible. The Bible: a book written by men, for men with countless translations and revisions along the way, the care of the New Testament of which has been entrusted to a church who was historically acted in a manner that is far different than the teachings of Christ.

Why should pointing that fact out when folks attempt to use the Bible as a basis for anything scientific somehow make me "righteous"? Perhaps because it differs from your views? Well, then, I apologize. Perhaps I should be more tolerant.

BTW, I'm not attacking Christianity any more than any other religion, I am simply using it as a relevant and visible example. I have an inherent disdain for any group that would seek to offer salvation for the masses when they themselves have no more understanding about the nature of what is than the individual at home. Anyone can open and read the Tora[h], Bible or Koran for themselves -- no interprepation necessary, although history has conveniently provided several revisions to each book (save perhaps the Koran).

Agreed, well put

Someone want to help while I kick that soapbox out from under him?Any reason other than the fact that he disagrees with you?

[RedskinsDave]

Any reason other than the fact that he disagrees with you?

Yeah, because it had nothing to do with the topic and was merely a vent/rail post.

[swheeler]

Yeah, because it had nothing to do with the topic and was merely a vent/rail post.

you're right, probably should have been in the religion/science/age of the earth thread.

[BurgundyNGold]

Who said that? I didn't read anyone say that
Actually, I got my wires crossed on that one. There is a concurrent thread I have been posting to where folks have been surmising the age of the Earth from the Bible. My bad. I guess that did sorta look like a diatribe :D. I meant every word of it though.

Just because you happen to BELIEVE that no one can offer salvation any more than some schmoe at home makes it no more true than a church who claims the same. Ironically most of them have the same righteous belief you have.
My problem is not with what I believe or what they believe, it is with the fact that religions tell other people what to believe. It's not that I believe that someone might acheive spiritual salvation without some sort of organized religious guidance, it's that religions try to sell it that it is impossible to do so without them. Where did they get that bright idea? I must have missed those passages in the Bible.

[RedskinsDave]

Actually, I got my wires crossed on that one. There is a concurrent thread I have been posting to where folks have been surmising the age of the Earth from the Bible. My bad. I guess that did sorta look like a diatribe :D. I meant every word of it though.

Fair enough :)


My problem is not with what I believe or what they believe, it is with the fact that religions tell other people what to believe. It's not that I believe that someone might acheive spiritual salvation without some sort of organized religious guidance, it's that religions try to sell it that it is impossible to do so without them. Where did they get that bright idea? I must have missed those passages in the Bible.

I won't argue with that. I don't think one faith or another gets the express train.

[Jimreaper007]

My problem is not with what I believe or what they believe, it is with the fact that religions tell other people what to believe. It's not that I believe that someone might acheive spiritual salvation without some sort of organized religious guidance, it's that religions try to sell it that it is impossible to do so without them. Where did they get that bright idea? I must have missed those passages in the Bible.

Another great post..