BC/AD vs. BCE/CE - Page 2

Boris Godunov · September 26, 2001, 14:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
You know it's pretty sad that people are all uppity about the date system. BC/AD is the way it has been and the way it should be period. The BCE/CE date system is the same thing only it doesn't offend atheists. Given what's going on in the world today it's just petty to flip your lid because you see BC/AD. There's too many other petty little things that bother people. Does it really matter? Ask yourself, does political correctness/incorrectness really matter in the end? Live and let be. We got other beastly things to worry about like terrorism.

Speaking as someone who is 1) Not an athiest and 2) isn't uppity, I must stress that the BCE/CE method of dating history has nothing to do with mollifying atheists. It is about incorporating non-European histories into a global view of history. To do this, we must take into account that most of the world is not of Judeo-Christian background. I think the BCE/CE method is the easiest way of avoiding massive overhauls of the dating system while still acknowledging history is written by all who participate, not just Europeans.

CobraA1 · September 26, 2001, 14:06

Doesn't really matter to me. Whatever they choose, you can change the text file if you don't like it. It's not like it changes the gameplay or anything.

jdd2007 · September 26, 2001, 15:00

like i said before, it doesnt really matter.

PGM · September 26, 2001, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by fluffy
Thinking about it, why isn't his birthyear 0AD, as '1AD' means 'one year after his birth' and '1BC' means 'one year before his birth?? Seems like there is a year missing....

The Roman culture didn't "have" the number 0. So, there was never a year 0, and Jesus was born on 1AD.
That is also the explanation to why the 21st century didn't begin until 2001. If there had been a year 0, the 21st century would have started on 2000.

dainbramaged13 · September 26, 2001, 18:58

you guys are taking this poll too sreriously.. this poll is a joke, i suggested it on the other forum as a joke, and the person who posted it knows it is a joke. how come you cant see it!?

Boris Godunov · September 26, 2001, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by PGM

The Roman culture didn't "have" the number 0. So, there was never a year 0, and Jesus was born on 1AD.
That is also the explanation to why the 21st century didn't begin until 2001. If there had been a year 0, the 21st century would have started on 2000.

I would also like to mention that Jesus was not, in fact, born in 1 AD. He was born sometime between 4 BC and 6 BC. Gregory screwed up his arithmetic in divising his calendar and got the year wrong. So technically we should be in the year 2005 to 2007 right now.

Cheers.

fluffy · September 27, 2001, 03:02

edited

Adagio · September 27, 2001, 03:04

Quote:

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
you guys are taking this poll too sreriously.. this poll is a joke, i suggested it on the other forum as a joke, and the person who posted it knows it is a joke. how come you cant see it!?

It's kinda scary to see all those people taking this poll that seriously

JellyDonut · September 27, 2001, 04:12

Quote:

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
you guys are taking this poll too sreriously.. this poll is a joke, i suggested it on the other forum as a joke, and the person who posted it knows it is a joke. how come you cant see it!?

He's right.

But you can post a poll here about anything and people will get into a historical argument. It's entertainment. So just sit back and enjoy the show.

campmajor! · September 27, 2001, 04:26

Well, I vote for BC/AD, but I won't argue with Boris, considering his signature....

Saint Marcus · September 27, 2001, 04:42

come to think of it, BC/AD makes no sense at all. I've played games where I changed the tech paradigm to 100/10 and hadn't researched monotheism till the year 1500 or so. How could Christ have walked on the earth if there wasn't monotheism? I mean, he could have walked there, but he wouldn't be "christ" as in son of the one and only God.

Adagio · September 27, 2001, 04:46

Quote:

Originally posted by campmajor!
Well, I vote for BC/AD, but I won't argue with Boris, considering his signature....

hehe

Oldenbarnevelt · September 27, 2001, 06:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
BCE/CE is now the standard and accepted method of date notation among historical scholars. It is done because "Before Christ" is meaningless to 3/5ths of the world.

I think, being a historical simulation of many different civs, CIV3 should either do the BCE/CE or simply start at year 1 and go to 6000, as someone else said on another board.

I couldn't agree more! Using CE will make "our" time scale more palatable to those with other systems -- Muslims, Jews, Chinese, ... -- and also to the growing numbers of atheists and agnostics in the Western world. Time measuring is fundamental and universal; it should no longer reflect religious bias. CIV, of all games, should be neutral and universal, and therefore adopt CE.

Boris Godunov · September 27, 2001, 06:54

Quote:

Originally posted by campmajor!
Well, I vote for BC/AD, but I won't argue with Boris, considering his signature....

You are just jealous of my irrefutable, magnificent and airtight logic and reasoning power. Bask in my sunshine!

Hee.

Adagio · September 27, 2001, 06:55

Talking about the timescale...why don't the whole world not change to a whole new kind of date, which means today is year 0 and there are 3 sundays a week

Boris Godunov · September 27, 2001, 07:30

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
Talking about the timescale...why don't the whole world not change to a whole new kind of date, which means today is year 0 and there are 3 sundays a week

For that matter, we could all be like the French and work 3 days a week.

Dugrik · September 27, 2001, 07:54

Quote:

Originally posted by fluffy

Thinking about it, why isn't his birthyear 0AD, as '1AD' means 'one year after his birth' and '1BC' means 'one year before his birth?? Seems like there is a year missing....

Because when the Julian calendar years were renumbered to use Christ's birth as the starting point, Europeans did not have, nor could they conceive of, the number zero. The number zero and the base ten numbering system were not adopted in Europe until the fourteenth century. Thus there is no Year 0.

It was my understanding that historians have placed the events described in Luke 2:1-2 in the year 4 BCE.

Boris Godunov · September 27, 2001, 08:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Dugrik

Because when the Julian calendar years were renumbered to use Christ's birth as the starting point, Europeans did not have, nor could they conceive of, the number zero. The number zero and the base ten numbering system were not adopted in Europe until the fourteenth century. Thus there is no Year 0.

It was my understanding that historians have placed the events described in Luke 2:1-2 in the year 4 BCE.

Also, "Anno Domini" does not mean after birth. It means "In the Year of Our Lord." So 1 AD is the first year of Our Lord.

According to J.M. Roberts' excellent A History of the World (Penguin publishers, highly recommend it), there still is not a consensus, and likely never will be. A lot of people say 4 BCE because it makes it nice and pat that Jesus would have been 33 in 30 CE, when he was crucified, and the Bible says he was in his 33rd year.

Cookie Monster · September 27, 2001, 08:47

JellyDonut?

Is chow allowed in the barracks Pvt. Pyle? Are you allowed to eat jelly donuts Pvt. Pyle?

Eli · September 27, 2001, 10:16

Use the Jewish calendar!

seer_98 · September 27, 2001, 10:22

AD - Anno Domini - "in the year of our lord"
Well he isn't my lord. I can't say, "The year is 2001 AD.", because this means "2001 in the year of our lord". 2001 CE is fine with me.

BC - Before Christ. Christ isn't a name or a title. It means the messiah as foretold in the old testament. Even using BC concedes a religeous point, I'm not willing to concede (ie That Jesus was Christ.) If you are a jew you believe christ hasn't come yet. Atheists don't even believe he will ever exist. Only christians concede Jesus was Christ. Implicit in this term is an inherent belief in Christianity. BCE works fine for me.

AD/BC aren't used in large parts of the world. Perhaps firaxis will change it to BCE/CE in some of its country customizations. I hope they do it for the American release, as it really shouldn't confuse anyone.

This isn't political correctness. It is courtesy. Not calling a person on the street f*ckface or religeous freak isn't political correctness either. It is also common manner/coutesy.

Gangerolf · September 27, 2001, 10:48

Quote:

This isn't political correctness. It is courtesy. Not calling a person on the street f*ckface or religeous freak isn't political correctness either. It is also common manner/coutesy.

Of course it's PC. It's PC in the same way as saying "African American" instead of "Negro".
Political correctness is appropriate in some cases, but in other it's just plain silly.

seer_98 · September 27, 2001, 12:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf

... as BCE/CE seems to be some hypocritical political correct bullshit (no offense).

I fail to see how its hypocritical. And I still fail to see how its politically correct. I think the term you were searching for is just "correct".

Cookie Monster · September 27, 2001, 13:03

Just curious......

Has this discussion ever been debated before? What I mean is, has the BC/BCE AD/CE issue ever been debated at all at anytime in history other than the past 3 years with such passion in the Western World?

Boris Godunov · September 27, 2001, 13:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Just curious......

Has this discussion ever been debated before? What I mean is, has the BC/BCE AD/CE issue ever been debated at all at anytime in history other than the past 3 years with such passion in the Western World?

Yes, repeatedly, bitterly, ad nauseum.

But, among historians, BCE/CE seems to be winning out.

Buck Birdseed · September 27, 2001, 13:41

I object to our "common era" being defined by the supposed date of birth of a historical figure who might or might not have existed, and who certainly has been more divisive than uniting. In what way is the age after the 11th of Nivôse in MDCCXCI before the Revolution any way the start of said "common era"?

Vive Le Calendaire Jacobien!

Boris Godunov · September 27, 2001, 19:38

Quote:

I object to our "common era" being defined by the supposed date of birth of a historical figure who might or might not have existed

Hold on there, partner!

If you're referring to Jesus, there is no historical doubt that he did indeed exist. Jesus was certainly a real man. He is documented in more than just the Bible...Roman records refer to him, as do local Hebrew records.

The question is a theological one (his divinity), not his reality.

Cheers.

CobraA1 · September 27, 2001, 21:25

Put Common Era in. I don't mind. It'll seem strange to me, being raised with BC/AD, but it won't change the game any. It can probably be edited anyway.

jdlessl · September 28, 2001, 01:20

I'd just go with starting the game at year 0 and counting upwards. What calender is used within the year isn't really important since Civ doesn't deal with time periods <1 year. However, mods of the game certainly will so the game should be customizable to use any calendar system it wants.

--
Jared Lessl

JellyDonut · September 28, 2001, 03:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
I object to our "common era" being defined by the supposed date of birth of a historical figure who might or might not have existed, and who certainly has been more divisive than uniting. In what way is the age after the 11th of Nivôse in MDCCXCI before the Revolution any way the start of said "common era"?

Vive Le Calendaire Jacobien!

Had I known a fellow revolutionary were among us, I might have wished you Bonne Année earlier this week.

Liberté! Egalité! Fraternité!