Moderator: Community Team

Who?2dimes wrote:Before present.
Removes the need to reference someone that was important for about 2000 years. Now it's important for some to find ways to try and bury him again. Why would that be if he was just some guy?

Heh... Although I agree we shouldn't use a christian based anything, or any religion for that matter, christianity(All sects) is by far the majority. Clearly...maasman wrote:I don't care what system we us for time as long as its consistent. And why should 6 billion people use a christian religious reference when the majority of those people don't believe in christianity anyway?
How? 2/3 of the world aren't christian.Strife wrote:Heh... Although I agree we shouldn't use a christian based anything, or any religion for that matter, christianity(All sects) is by far the majority. Clearly...maasman wrote:I don't care what system we us for time as long as its consistent. And why should 6 billion people use a christian religious reference when the majority of those people don't believe in christianity anyway?

I don't know, I had a point but I forgot it. I'll get back to you on that.hecter wrote:How? 2/3 of the world aren't christian.Strife wrote:Heh... Although I agree we shouldn't use a christian based anything, or any religion for that matter, christianity(All sects) is by far the majority. Clearly...maasman wrote:I don't care what system we us for time as long as its consistent. And why should 6 billion people use a christian religious reference when the majority of those people don't believe in christianity anyway?
Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?2dimes wrote:Before present.
Finally, someone with a sensible suggestion!hecter wrote:I think we should all just embrace the Star Trek Stardate system.
Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.Woodruff wrote:Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?2dimes wrote:Before present.
Wut?2dimes wrote:Before present.
Removes the need to reference someone that was important for about 2000 years. Now it's important for some to find ways to try and bury him again. Why would that be if he was just some guy?
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
They're not THAT short, given that "present" last only the tiniest fraction of a second. EVERYTHING is pretty much "before present". My statement about "before present" is already "before present" by the time I finish saying it!2dimes wrote:Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.Woodruff wrote:Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?2dimes wrote:Before present.
Yeah it's impossible to change a measurement standard, it's never been successfully done before.Woodruff wrote:They're not THAT short, given that "present" last only the tiniest fraction of a second. EVERYTHING is pretty much "before present". My statement about "before present" is already "before present" by the time I finish saying it!2dimes wrote:Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.Woodruff wrote:Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?2dimes wrote:Before present.
There has to be some fixed point in history to use as a reference. Since we've all gotten by pretty well using BC and AD, it really seems silly to change it now. Using those terms don't in any way relate to a belief in Christ's godhood.
Wut?xelabale wrote:Yeah it's impossible to change a measurement standard, it's never been successfully done before.Woodruff wrote:They're not THAT short, given that "present" last only the tiniest fraction of a second. EVERYTHING is pretty much "before present". My statement about "before present" is already "before present" by the time I finish saying it!2dimes wrote:Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.Woodruff wrote:Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?2dimes wrote:Before present.
There has to be some fixed point in history to use as a reference. Since we've all gotten by pretty well using BC and AD, it really seems silly to change it now. Using those terms don't in any way relate to a belief in Christ's godhood.
I think the earth was in the 3.9-4.2 billion year range by the current estimates. Relatively speaking, I actually think its as close as the 10000 or 6000 year estimates that creationists use. In fact, being off by .3 billion years is pretty damn good compared to a 4000 year difference out of a possible 10000 years...relatively speaking of course. But then, there is a book thats almost as many years old that says thats correct, so I guess....it has to be right?2dimes wrote:Well we've been using the current calender system for over 400 years and the text books you're using are probably only 40 years old so the calender wins for staying power. No?
When discussing trilobites you're only going to be out 50 years or so before the glue in the binding gives way. Not really a factor when the things were here 7 zillion BP or what ever today's radio carbon dating range is.
I think AD isn't used anymore, maybe someone thought "Anno Domini" was too Christiocentric (that word is probably a neologism), it's CE and BCE afaik.Woodruff wrote:They're not THAT short, given that "present" last only the tiniest fraction of a second. EVERYTHING is pretty much "before present". My statement about "before present" is already "before present" by the time I finish saying it!2dimes wrote:Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.Woodruff wrote:Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?2dimes wrote:Before present.
There has to be some fixed point in history to use as a reference. Since we've all gotten by pretty well using BC and AD, it really seems silly to change it now. Using those terms don't in any way relate to a belief in Christ's godhood.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
That doesn't work as he'll just be back in three days.2dimes wrote:Now it's important for some to find ways to try and bury him again.
You missed the point. I'm not saying NOT to change it. I'm saying that:xelabale wrote:Yeah it's impossible to change a measurement standard, it's never been successfully done before.Woodruff wrote:They're not THAT short, given that "present" last only the tiniest fraction of a second. EVERYTHING is pretty much "before present". My statement about "before present" is already "before present" by the time I finish saying it!2dimes wrote:Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.Woodruff wrote:Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?2dimes wrote:Before present.
There has to be some fixed point in history to use as a reference. Since we've all gotten by pretty well using BC and AD, it really seems silly to change it now. Using those terms don't in any way relate to a belief in Christ's godhood.
Now I'm admittedly a middle-aged fart, but I don't recall ever having heard of CE or BCE (though it's very possible I'll recognize it when I hear it)...what is the "CE" representative of?MeDeFe wrote:I think AD isn't used anymore, maybe someone thought "Anno Domini" was too Christiocentric (that word is probably a neologism), it's CE and BCE afaik.Woodruff wrote:They're not THAT short, given that "present" last only the tiniest fraction of a second. EVERYTHING is pretty much "before present". My statement about "before present" is already "before present" by the time I finish saying it!2dimes wrote:Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.Woodruff wrote:Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?2dimes wrote:Before present.
There has to be some fixed point in history to use as a reference. Since we've all gotten by pretty well using BC and AD, it really seems silly to change it now. Using those terms don't in any way relate to a belief in Christ's godhood.
Common Era and Before the Common Era. It's the new big thing.Woodruff wrote:Now I'm admittedly a middle-aged fart, but I don't recall ever having heard of CE or BCE (though it's very possible I'll recognize it when I hear it)...what is the "CE" representative of?
Huh...I was wrong...I don't recognize it. I'll be darned.Frigidus wrote:Common Era and Before the Common Era. It's the new big thing.Woodruff wrote:Now I'm admittedly a middle-aged fart, but I don't recall ever having heard of CE or BCE (though it's very possible I'll recognize it when I hear it)...what is the "CE" representative of?
You maybe forget IPeter 4:17? Got your house all spic 'n span? Oil in your lamp?jay_a2j wrote:Shouldn't the title of this thread be: "Non-Christians, your time is almost up."?