Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What should be remembered, is that actually AD should precede the date, but is often written afterwards. So AD is sometimes not even written correctly.
Checked the numbers. You are correct. 66% are not Christian.
But what could possibly have happened at the time of 0.AD that could be so earth shattering as to deserve a whole new time system?
BCE and CE (the E is for era) has been in use in academic circles for many decades. Jehovh's witnesses use it in their publications and have for many decades. In short it is not new.I am sure this has been around a while but,
I have just recently noticed in a lot of dictionaries online they replace BC and AD with BCE(before current events) and CE (current events)....I didn't realize it had escalated that quickly to remove Christ from the mind of this world....scary. Lord have mercy.
I believe that the initials stand for Before Common Era and Common Era, but I am with you on this being just another bit of Politically Correct thinking run amok and evidence of a hostility to religion.
In addition, it doesnt entirely makes sense, since these initials replace BC and AD but keep the counting system that is based upon the birth date of Jesus Christ!
My opinion is that any history book worth its salt, would reference the people's own systems - such as Abs Urbs Condita, or Anno Mundi, or Diocletianic years, or so forth, in addition.
There is also BP; that is years before present.
My opinion is that any history book worth its salt, would reference the people's own systems - such as Abs Urbs Condita, or Anno Mundi, or Diocletianic years, or so forth, in addition. Directly related systems such as BC/AD vs BCE/CE, are merely preference as all would know which date is meant thereby.
That is not what I said. I said in addition, not exclusively. We need to mention both our own system and theirs, so that if we follow up original sources, we understand the framework better.I don't know about that. Taken to the logical conclusion, wouldn't that mean we should teach Chinese history in Chinese? Mentioning that other cultures see time differently - sure. But using those systems exclusively when speaking of that culture ... I'm not sure I see the point of that. The text for my Chinese history class was from Jonathan Spence, considered the western expert on Chinese history. In his books he insists on using the modern Chinese transliteration of names and terms (so Peking becomes Beijing, etc.). I understand that to some extent - people should be allowed to define themselves as they see themselves. But the new transliteration is a somewhat silly political maneuver whereby the Chinese attempted to throw off British influences on their culture. That silliness is exemplified by the transliteration of Qing. The old British system rendered it Ching, which is pronounced "ching". In contrast, the new transliteration is pronunced "ching" ... uh. So the Chinese replaced the "ch" with "q", and then changed the pronunciation of the English letter q. Hmm.
I get it that the actual Chinese word is neither a pure "ch" nor "q" sound, but that's just odd. They're offended that the British appropriated their words and anglicized them, so they transliterate all their words in a way that appropriates the English alphabet and introduces new pronunciations that the Brits don't use, that doesn't reference the actual Chinese system, and thereby creating a useless set of characters that neither the Chinese nor the British understand. Oy vey.
History, by its very nature, is a process of translating the experiences of other people into terms that we can understand within the context of our own experiences. So, if we're going to translate Chinese history into English, I've no problem using terms that English cultures will understand - dates and all - with one caveat: that we are careful not to stuff Chinese history into an English framework.
With the exception of the one little oddity I mentioned, Spencer successfully does that. My Chinese history class was the first I ever took wherein I had the odd feeling of separation from the subject matter due to unfamiliar cultural paradigms. I had to work really hard to overcome that. With great effort, by the end of the class, I felt I was finally beginning to see the world as the Chinese saw it - though admittedly my view was still "through a glass darkly" (to quote a famous passage you're probably familiar with).
That is not what I said. I said in addition, not exclusively. We need to mention both our own system and theirs, so that if we follow up original sources, we understand the framework better.
No it wasn't useless, just a bit off topic. I myself hate Chinese transliteration problems. I have a Taiwanese friend that this renders talking history with almost impossible. We first need to figure out which people or events the other is refering to. Not to mention my complete inability to correctly pronounce anything Chinese.My apologies for misunderstanding. I agree that "in addition" is a good approach. Darn. It took a long time to write that post and now it just looks silly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?