|
Post by gillianren on Nov 20, 2007 23:19:08 GMT -4
Again, "CE" is intended to stand for "Common Era." It isn't, though; if we are to date a Common Era, it must occur in 1492 or later. The calendar was designed to be based on the birth of Jesus. "AD" is from the Latin "Anno Domini," "Year of Our Lord." Yes, the date is wrong. Yes, there is some doubt as to the existence of a historical Jesus, although I don't have any. However, everyone who knows anything about this particular calendar knows that it's intended to be counted from the birth of Jesus. Pretending it isn't is just silly.
Again, I also have a big problem with the idea that there is any kind of non-Christian era that can be dated to AD 1. (Remember, there's no Year 0.) There simply isn't. It's the year that people who haven't studied very much, like many modern people, or who have counted wrong, like Dionysus Exiguus, think Jesus was born. There is no other significance to the date; it's not even like Christmas and Mithras. If we're going to keep using the calendar, and I see vast difficulties in trying to change it (not least being what you replace it with!), we must acknowledge its origins.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 20, 2007 23:51:43 GMT -4
I don't object to anyone calling it Christmas, either. I object to Christians and opportunists who insist that everyone must use "Christmas" to denote everything about the season. There are several Christian groups in the US who threaten to boycott businesses that use "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Again, the first two are inclusive of everyone, the third is not - using the first two is just good business sense.
Nobody has ever told a Christian that they can't say "Merry Christmas" or that they can't call their tree a "Christmas" tree. Christians, however, seem to think they can tell everyone else what words to use and that is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Nov 21, 2007 1:24:51 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 21, 2007 10:33:41 GMT -4
On the subject of CE versus AD: I didn't know much more than the basic story of how the calender was supposedly reworked by Dionysius Exiguus. It seems that Dionysius probably didn't use the Bible as his basis for calculation: By incorporating of three factors, he precalculated the conjunction of all naked eye planets including Sun and Moon of May 2000. He figured it out with the help of so called eternal planet boards and a ``plotting year calculation'' (Zieljahrberechnung). Then he determined the year 1 A. D. exactly 1999 years before it, due the medieval assumed constant of precession, (66 2/3 years each degree), that was base of calculation of later Arabian and Persian astronomers. Thus he linked the ``Platonic Year'' with the ``Greatest Year''. He did this in order to fulfil the Christian belief of the return of the Lord during a planetary position which is equivalent to the Greek Symposium or the start of the Kali Yuga, calculated by the Indian astronomer Aryabhata. For both calculations actually the alignment of all planets of year 531 CE was the base. In his late antique religious and astronomical world view Dionysius determined the yearly counting such a way, that the year 2000 (2nd millennium) of his count should mark the end of the age of Pisces (ICHTHYS) and the religiously prophesied Christian end time. From the abstract for the article "The Origin of the Common Yearly Counting in the Julian and Gregorian Calendar with Special Attention to the Ancient Astronomy and World View" From the article: It is also rather improbable that a mythic conjunction of all planets should so closely coincide with the second millennium at the arbitrary end of a religious age by accident!adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGM....18.P257Rcura.free.fr/xx/17sepp1.htmlThis article makes a good case for the basis of the current calender being a planetary alignment, from which Dionysius determined his placement of the year 1. If this is the case, then - regardless of Dionysius' intentions - his calender does have a "common" reference: the planetary alignment.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 21, 2007 11:08:17 GMT -4
I don’t have any problem with companies sending out “Holiday” cards. My firm has clients of different religious backgrounds but we don’t ask what they practice. Any cards we send are not personal religious wishes but a corporate greeting to thank our clients for their business, even if this is not explicitly stated. The few clients with whom we have a personal relationship get personal Christmas cards as well, with pictures of the family and such. This is just good business manners.
For many years, a cry often heard from Christians was the secularization and commercialization of the religious Christmas. As such, I actually prefer the separation of the commercial from the religious by the elimination of the corporate pretence of celebrating Christmas. A company cannot hold religious beliefs and any pretence to do so is marketing. This is not to say that they should sell “Holiday” trees, I suspect that most people who put up trees do so with some connotation to Christmas as a religious holiday. Labeling merchandise according to customer expectations is important, regardless of actual use.
I find that some Christians have a bit of a persecution complex. It seems to come from reading too many eschatological stories and the belief that we will soon be entering into the end times. Others just seem to have nostalgia for some supposed time when there was a common faith and belief was not in question. Both get kind of irritating to those who prefer to live in the present. Lets always remember that despite what commercial society would have us believe, marketing is not a religion. Even if they both contain the goal of moving individuals toward certain beliefs and actions.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 21, 2007 14:41:16 GMT -4
Christmas time is here, by golly, Disapproval would be folly. Deck the halls with hunks of holly, Fill the cup and don't say when.
Kill the turkeys, ducks and chickens, Mix the punch, drag out the Dickens. Even though the prospect sickens, Brother, here we go again.
On Christmas Day you can't get sore, Your fellow man you must adore. There's time to rob him all the more The other three hundred and sixty-four.
Relations, sparing no expense, 'll Send some useless old utensil, Or a matching pen and pencil. ("Just the thing I need, how nice!")
It doesn't matter how sincere it is, Nor how heart felt the spirit, Sentiment will not endear it, What's important is the price.
Hark, the Herald Tribune sings, Advertising wondrous things. God rest ye merry merchants, May ye make the Yuletide pay. Angels we have heard on high, Tell us to go out and buy!
So, let the raucous sleigh bells jingle, Hail our dear old friend Kris Kringle, Driving his reindeer across the sky. Don't stand underneath when they fly by.
;D
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 21, 2007 15:02:53 GMT -4
Since we're quoting large amounts of text:
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 21, 2007 15:40:35 GMT -4
A while back, I worked at a public radio station -- a friend of mine there once recorded a reading of "A Christmas Carol." He read it straight through, taking all the characters and giving each its own voice. This was at least 20 years ago and they've been playing the recording each year since then. My friend died a few years ago, so I look forward to hearing his voice again when they air it. It's a very good book.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 21, 2007 17:05:41 GMT -4
Actually, I don't particularly like it. But then, I don't in general like Dickens (except A Tale of Two Cities). However, I do have the Patrick Stewart reading on audio cassette.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 21, 2007 19:46:38 GMT -4
your composition?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 21, 2007 21:00:32 GMT -4
Mass produced. I bought it in a used bookstore. For Christmas reading, I much prefer O. Henry.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 24, 2007 22:08:46 GMT -4
Well I have always been a vocal advocate of Christians moving Christmas to a "closer" date and leaving the current one to those that are only interested in boozing and partying.
As to the date of birth, it's most likely August/September. April would have been very unlikely as it would have been spring. The nights would still have been cold and they would have had lambs to look after against predators seeking to restore their energies after the winter. It's highly unlikely that any shepards would have been out at night with their floaks in April, however in the late summer/early autumn nights when it was warm and the lambs were old enough to move quickly in case of predators coming, staying in the fields at night were not an issue.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 24, 2007 23:03:10 GMT -4
My understanding was actually that it was during lambing time that shepherds were most likely to be out with their flocks, though I'll admit that my knowledge of sheep farming is somewhat lacking.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 25, 2007 0:17:09 GMT -4
I've always thought that New Years should become the non-religious gift giving and partying holiday, and Christians can celebrate Christmas in whatever boring way they want, whenever they want. I like the New Year holiday for it's "retrospection while looking forward" nature.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 25, 2007 1:21:56 GMT -4
April is likely because the shepherds would be most likely to be out with their flocks at night while they (the flocks) were lambing, as Gillian said. Yeah, it would be cold, but not as cold as a December night.
|
|