A.D. & B.C.

[Oswego del Fuego]

There's actually somewhat of a movement among... um... well I guess its starting with historians mostly.  But its to change the reilgious implications of Bc/AD to  BCE/CE, which is "Before Common Era" and "Common Era".

I find that to be very nearly the stupidest thing ever.  Why rename the eras if Jesus is STILL the person/event which separates the two great epochs of history?

The only way to de-Christianize the calender is to invent an entirely new calendar based upon new criteria.

But... why de-Christianize the calendar, anyway?  It's perfectly fine as it is, and I say that as a decidedly non-religious person.

OdF

[DeweyisOverrated]

Hey, I didn't make it up.  But you know how picky people today are, separate church and state completly, you can't wear an X-Mas shirt in apublic school, crap like that.  But I completly agree with you on the point that its really just renaming two "time periods" that are still determined by the birth of Jesus (disregarding the fact that evidence says he was really born in 3 or 4 AD)

[Hadriel]

Thread necromancy!  Thread necromancy!

Well, I live in the Bible Belt, so they're not going to shut down people who want to wear crosses to school or paint many variations of JESUS RULZ in 1337speak all over their cars.  Other people might, but a lot of them are social outcasts; I remember one time about four years ago that for some reason I was wearing a T-shirt with some verse about the Holy Spirit on it, and some goth guy behind me said "hey, the Spirit's for gay people."  The me from four years ago thought "poor guy."  The me from today thinks "what a stupid jerkoff."  Sure, he has the right to express his opinion and generally be offensive, but judging from his overall tone he was one of those counter-culture types.  If you're going to object to any given religion, at least find a halfway decent reason for it.  Song lyrics by whiny goth bands don't count.

[V_Translanka]

Is there such thing as whiny goth? I think that's more emo you mean...goths are normally too full of shit to bother coming out of their dark holes to actually converse and interact w/people on any fundamental level.

And, also, I think gay people are very spiritual! [/couldntresist]

[Hadriel]

Emo is like the new goth, except that goths are still around which makes it even more unbearable.  A lot of the girls I know listen to emo music, and I keep on pleading with them to change it to something that doesn't injure my delicate sensibilities (i.e. heavy metal).

[V_Translanka]

I always see emo kids as the goth outcasts...the kids who weren't even cool enough for the goths to hang out with...which, of course, just makes them cry that much more, yeah? They can take their Dashboard & shove it

>_>

<_<

>_>

[kazmaka]

emo music is completely diferent to goth music   , goth music contains a few random people droaning in a low pitched mumble while random instruments are playing randomly in the background, emo contains the opposite (kinda).

now i am anti - religion, but "hey, the Spirit's for gay people." is not the way to present your case, you can tell this guy had a poor education.

[V_Translanka]

anti-religion? I don't know if I've ever heard anything expressed that way...

[kazmaka]

aah well thats because im probably the only person to express it that way, it has a diferent meaning to non-religous,
non-religous=a person who, although doesnt believe in a religion (so to speak), does not appose the religion or its followers, but merely see's them as another view on the world of which they do not wholly believe but you just never know they may be right.

anti-religous=a person who openly or otherwise dislikes the whole idea of religion and dismisses followers of that religion as weakminded fools, with no chance in hell of ever believing what that religion stands for, could ever be try.

now im not saying i take it to the extreme i wrote it in, but basically you see the diference.

[DeweyisOverrated]

There shouldn't be any huge reason for Porre to change the calandar, as far as I'm concerned.  Just because an empire falls, donesn't mean you gotta change the system.  The roman empire fell how long ago?  It was like 40 A.D., right?  No one seemed too eager to change it.

[Chrono'99]

There shouldn't be any huge reason for Porre to change the calandar, as far as I'm concerned.  Just because an empire falls, donesn't mean you gotta change the system.  The roman empire fell how long ago?  It was like 40 A.D., right?  No one seemed too eager to change it.

Change what? Why would the fall of (half of) the Roman Empire make people change the Christian calendar? That's it, it's the Christian calendar not the Roman calendar. In the Chrono series on the other hand, the calendar used is the Guardian calendar, based on the foundation of the kingdom not the birth of some spiritual dude as far as we know.

[Oswego del Fuego]

Historically, all calendars are made retroactively.  Conquering empires do not celebrate their victory by immediately declaring that "This is Year 1."  At least not typically.  Rather, some historian a few centuries later will retroactively rename the year of victory as Year 1, and, over time, that new dating convention will gain popularity and become standard.

Anyway, this is all kind of a moot point, since the inscription on the statue in Chronopolis demonstrates that the Guardia calendar remains in place even way out in 2400 AD, and anything beyond that point is beyond our knowing (at least so far).

OdF

[Aitrus]

There shouldn't be any huge reason for Porre to change the calandar, as far as I'm concerned.  Just because an empire falls, donesn't mean you gotta change the system.  The roman empire fell how long ago?  It was like 40 A.D., right?  No one seemed too eager to change it.

*slaps forehead*  Gotta love our education system...

The Roman Empire did not fall in 40 AD.  It was just getting to the good part around then.

When the Roman Empire fell depends on what you see as the "fall."  Several smaller empires broke away circa 260 AD, but were recovered around 290.  However, the Roman government split around then into the Eastern and Western empires.  This could be called the fall of the empire.

Wait just a few years to 359 AD, and you could also call when the Emperor Constantine moved the entire Roman government from Rome to his new city of Constantinople in modern Turkey the "fall of the Roman Empire."

Or, if you want to just count when the last Emperor fell, that wouldn't be until 1453 AD, although the empire at that point had become known as the Byzantine Empire.

And, to cap all this off, the Romans didn't even use the BC/AD system.  They counted from the founding of Rome.  Year 1 ad urbe condita (Year 1 since the founding of the City) was about the year 753 BC according to their legends.  The dating system was changed by a bunch of monks sometime during the Renaissance.

[jotabe1789]

Btw, after the French Revolution, the French did change the roman-christian calendar for a new one, called "revolutionary". It had such a big success, and was so widely used among people that noone remembered about it when Napoleon had it removed.

[Aitrus]

Yeah, I'm sure that went over about as well as metric time did.  I mean, it was hard enough when Pope Gregory removed something like 17 days from one year to sync back up with the solar calendar (which not everyone did, btw), but to completely scrap a calendar?  Start renumbering years, yes.  Mess with the calendar itself? Not likely to be too successful there.