Talk:Jesus/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Christian views of Jesus

Since there is revision of this article being done, I would like to suggest some minor changes to this paragraph. First of all, it is problematic to state that Jesus was "a part" of the Holy Trinity. One might say that He was a "member" of the Holy Trinity or the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The Trinity is not divided into "parts." Secondly, mention should be made in this section about the orthodox Christian doctrine of the two natures in Christ. This does not have to be detailed, but it makes the difference clearer between those who affirm the deity of Christ and those who deny it. drboisclair 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The trial, changes are ignored

Hello some days I made a proposal about the presentation of the trial, there was one contribution, supporting that change but none against it. Nevertheless some people revert that change without contributing to the discussion, I find this annoying! Oub 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC):

I didn't remove it, but did notice that your addition is riddled with spelling errors. Perhaps that contributed to its removal. Just a thought. KHM03 15:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
ok, point taken Oub 16:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC):
Looking it over, in my view, your addition is inferior to the previous version. That may also have contributed to its removal, but I'll let the other editors speak for themselves. KHM03 15:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
inferior in which sense, the style, the content? Could you please be more specific.Oub 16:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC):
I reverted because I felt the previous version was better (less POV, better spelling better format etc) and there was hardly enough real discussion. I understand your irrtation, it is justified, but that's why I reverted and I stand by it. Furthermore, judging by the response concerning which version is preferable, I feel that the old version is preferred and I will change it back.Gator (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You may have a point concerning, the style and the spelling but as for POV, I respectfully disagree. The central point of my argument is this.
  1. The Gospels differ (basically John versus Synoptics, but there are other differences between the Synoptics as well). Do you agree with this, or do you want me to list the differences?
  2. The previous version did make a selection of the material presented by the Gospels and that IMHO is POV.
So in that sense I consider my version less POV that the previous one. Please explain why my version is POV.
in any case I would find it much better if you or someone else could make concrete proposals or criticism instead of claiming it one version is more POV than the other.
As for the response(s). It is now 1 to 1 mind you. How shall we proceed, waiting for more opinions? What is the critical number sufficient for a change and who is going to decide this, you?
Oub 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC):
Objections?Gator (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
yes I do, I find the previous version POV, the Gospel material is selected in that version in a very POV way.Oub 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC):
We should wait for more, but the original version should be used until there is consensus for change.Gator (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oub, I would disagree with you edit, but for additinal reasons. The facts are that Jesus was arrested and went trial, etc. Your edit focused on the differences between the four gospels; a worthy subject, but not germaine to this topic...Jesus. The current text adequately describes the bare facts. Granted, embellishements could be made, but I favor simplicity. Storm Rider 17:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But what are the facts?????? Now I play Pilate and say, what is truth?
Again:
  1. according to John, the romans took part in the arrest, there was no trial, and hence Jesus was not condemned.
  2. According to the Synoptics, there was a either a night trial or not, Jesus said he was the messiah or that he was not, he was condemned or may he was not.
  3. A great multitude of the people (Lk. 23:27) and all the multitudes (Lk. 23:48) of Jews are sorrowful about Jesus' crucifixion.
These facts are with equal right, the facts of the Gospels. Not mentioning them is POV .
Oub 17:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC):

and I have to add, selecting the material the way the old version does, is POV. Please explain to me why that selection is not POV, but mentioning the non uniqueness of the narration is POV. Oub 17:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC):

Intro dates - again

The first two paragraphs both styart with supposed dates. This is very poor writing. Surely, if we are giving the POV that he existed (still dubious), it should be in one or the other but both cannot be justified? Robsteadman 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The precise dates are uncertain according to scholars, but 6-4 BC/BCE seems to be the dominant view. KHM03 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the dates are uncertain, and many would say fictitious, what I'm suggesting is that the dates shouldn;t appear at the beginning of both the fiorst and second paragraph. Why basically repeat a statement - particularly when the facts are slightly different. Poor English.Robsteadman 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Stating the dates once ought to be sufficient. KHM03 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To me the logical ones to remove, which cause least disruption, are those in the first paragraph. Robsteadman 21:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Now why would the first paragraph be your "logical" choice? Hmm... You were also wanting the statement about some doubting Jesus' existance to be in the first paragraph, why remove the estimated dates of his life? Of course the dates should stay in the first sentence of the first paragraph. --Oscillate 22:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think that the intro has a POV and that more should be included about the FACT there is no NPOV evidence for him ev er having existed - as such the dates are spurious and misleading - in fact they are *OV. But if they are to be there they make sense in relation to "these scholars believe he existed between....." not in the first paragraph - which, as I say, gives the POV that he definitely existed without any verifiable evidence - there is only verifiable evidence taht some people BELIEVE he existed - a totally different thing. Robsteadman 22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Around and around and around we go again...The dates should stay in the first sentence. The best compromise you could hope for would probably be to add "supposedly" or "most believe" or something similar in the first sentence. --Oscillate 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If I see one more qualifier in this artcile I'm going to freak out! (most, a minority, some...enough!)Gator (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point - it is appalling ENglish to have the dates (and different dates) at the beginning of both the first two paragraphs. As for qualifiers, when there is so much doubt and lack of verifiable fact, you need qualifiers because some choose to 'believe' despite the evidence. So.... the dates - why do we need different dates in both the first tgwo paras? Robsteadman 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a problem with hyperbole. It's not "appalling" give it a rest. The dates refer to two different things. The first is the standard dating for any person and the second goes into greater detail becuase there is some debate over when he was exactly born and some debate (from a very small fringe minority) that argues he didn't exist at all, because no one happened to record his existence EXACTLY when he was alive.Gator (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish Rob could put things in a way that didn't antagonize people. Reading the article he does have a point however. It does look a bit odd having two sets of dates. Really the mainstream dates should be in the intro (with the others in the more detailed sections) but the way the paragraphs are currently written it's the dates in the first sentence that seem redundant. However, normally you expect to see the dates directly after someones name in an encyclopedia. I don't want this to blow up into an edit war so can live with it as it is but it does look a bit odd. SOPHIA 23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree. This is probably a result of the reorganization that merged the Background section back into the intro. I've noticed such editing artifacts whenever data gets moved. (For another example, see above.) All it needs is a decent copyedit.archola 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Gator - it's more than just a fringe minority - there are many who doubt "jesus" existed and the POV dates are a problem. However, if you want them kept in the first paragraph why not use the 2nd para dates there (it already says "about") and maybe someone can find a way to rewrite the second para so there is not duplication? SOPHIA - the problem is I think some just don;t like theis "faith" being held up to verifiable rational and factual analysis. Robsteadman 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making comments like that. --Oscillate 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Rob you are quite entitled to your views and in this instance I think you were factually right about the dates in the article. I happen to agree with your view on the non existence of Jesus, accept that most don't agree with me, and then show them the respect I expect them to show me. It doesn't matter what we think or what's true but I do feel the article benefits by being edited by a wide spectrum of editors. It's just easier if we try to concentrate on the actual issue and be clear in a factual way as to what the objections really are. SOPHIA 23:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I was just offering up some explanation as to tyhe phenomena to which you referred!! The objections are the article is still too POV, misleading and poorly written. The multiple other pages which re-hash the same stuff cold be reduced in number and length hugely - and they should be made NPOV too. Robsteadman 23:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You will have to learn and understand the word: compromise, "rob", if you want anything other than edit wars on these articles. So far you haven't shown any desire to compromise and others, who have been willing to do so, will regret working with you, and then never repeat their mistake, unless you do (compromise). --Oscillate 23:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There should not be any compromise about NPOV - the most important principle in Wikipedia. And there should be no comproimise about putting verifiable fact before guesswork/hope/belief. Robsteadman 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You realize that you are coming into all these Christian-related articles with a very huge POV and you are pusing that POV in whatever way you can under the guise of NPOV. You've even used NPOV in ways outside of it's definition as a support for your arguments. If you don't realize that, as SOPHIA said before, you have a POV as well, then you're not going to get very far. --Oscillate 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Most editors on this page don't really try to do that as can be seen from the discussions we have had over the last couple of days about the intro. I know some have been less that charitable about our view on things but hey - just turn the other cheek and move on. SOPHIA 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to use the civilized exchanges over last couple of days as a good example of NPOV editorship but I don't think I put it too well. Obviously time to sleep. SOPHIA 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you're trying to make "rob" look like a victim? You at least have been reasonable and personable. Thanks for that. --Oscillate 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is annoying that it's still pretty badly written when you compare it to featured articles and to tell you the truth probably incompleate considering the subject, but it looks like many of the original editors left in apparent disgust after the article was locked, I only came in right when people were finally starting to get it unlocked. Furthermore, I STILL continue to stand by the statement that any article without a POV is worthless, because then there is no point of view to actually provide information, or at least in this case, provide information not hopelessly over-written by negative speculation. Homestarmy 00:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But it must be NPOV - that is one of the principles on which Wikipedia is founded. Articles which are POV (without adequate discalimers) are worthless - that's why some of the other "jesus" articles are unjustified. Robsteadman 08:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
And remember - we're not here to prove Jesus' existence or disprove it; we're here to reiterate what academia and society say. They say that Jesus was a real person, with a few folks who question that. So let's reflect this honestly in the article. KHM03 00:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
But do the majority of "society" (which society?) say he really existed? The problem is that the majority of "Biblical scholars" come from a "faith" POV and are, therefore, naturally, biased. We should be reflecting what is verifiable and factual with NPOV. Robsteadman 08:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You're reaching...it could just as easily be said that critical scholars come from an athiest or sometimes even an anti-Christian POV, just like you. --Oscillate 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a Wikiproject to organize and maintain the information in the various Jesus articles. In the meantime, I'm working on an outline organizing the relevant articles that I'm aware of. archola 00:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
PS-There apparently is a Wikiproject managing the "Topics related to Jesus" infobox, but the focus seems too narrow. archola 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

New Proposal – AD/BC ONLY

After looking at this situation from another perspective I noticed that it is completely ridiculous to have the recent euphemism for anno Domini, common era, have any place on this page. When Dionysius Exiguus created the system, his intent was to base it on the birth of Jesus. When CE/BCE came along, it was intended as a Jewish replacement for these terms when referring specifically to Jewish-related events prior to the 1st century. It was in no way intended to replace AD/BC as the norm. I can understand that the CE/BCE system be used at non-Christian religious pages, and even any other page besides those with strong Christian affiliation. But not the Jesus page, please folks. If there is one page that should include the original system it's Jesus. I have scoured many articles, including the completely religious-neutral Julius Caesar and Augustus, which still reference only AD/BC throughout. Its those articles that should have the pathetically ridiculous X BC/BCE or X AD/CE manneurisms, not Jesus. I understand that this article needs to be POV, but considering AD/BC is used on nearly every part of Wikipedia, including the fact that all years prior to 1 AD on Wikipedia pages are labeled BC (see 1 BCE, 2 BCE, 3 BCE, etc.– they all re-direct to BC), I think its perfectly fine to have only the Anno Domini system present at this page.

Does it not make anyone SICK to see an article about Jesus of Nazareth, the figure responsible for the division of time periods using AD/BC, include the politically correct, secular-biased "common era"?? (That hasn't even divorced itself from dividing time by the Nativity, it just divides time by Christ without acknowledging it)

I hope we can all come to the concensus of removing the BCE/CE references on this site, please vote below. Darwiner111 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

let's not get too emotional about this guys (Or girls) Homestarmy 02:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

— NOTE: VOTING ENDS 02:12, 9 FEBRUARY 2006 (UTC) —

This has already been voted on and agreed on twice. Please stop trying re-open this. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This article shall use Anno Domini (AD/BC)

  • Darwiner111 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Homestarmy 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I think you might be getting a bit too angry over it, but hey, i'll give it a go, it'll make the page less cluttered date-wise.
  • rossnixon 02:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sam Spade 19:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I'd make a comment but it would probably go over poorly. Sam Spade 19:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • really if you want to maintain such a change in an article such as this one you should expect constant conflict. keith 10:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This article shall continue with current compromise (AD/BC/BCE/CE)

  • Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Please respect previous consensus.
  • JFW | T@lk 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (bad form to repeat votes after consensus was already achieved)
  • --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC) This has already been decided numerous times, please respect consensus.
  • SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC) This is getting silly.
  • JimWae 04:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC) If any change should be made to era notation on this article, it should go exclusively to Common Era. Saying that "Jesus is Lord" on the Jesus page is about as POV as one can get. Polls are evil and should not be allowed every 2 months when some new guy with blocked accounts who has a competing proposal on eras going at the same time thinks it would "be fun" to disrupt wikipedia without even gauging discussion first - and the vote does not end in just 4 days
  • a.n.o.n.y.m t Consensus as before and we must leave dates neutral on wikipedia.
  • (How can you say CONCENSUS and leave dates neutral - the problem is that the concensus has POV dates.)
Still the consensus, and this is at least the 4th time Ive seen this argued on this page in the last 2 months. Getting SO old!Gator (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Concensus isn;t necesarily good - particularly when it is pOV or biased - as I've said befoire people used not to blink at the Black & White Monstrel show, Cock Fighting, Public Hangings - now people realise these are wrong. AD is wrong because it is biased and POV. Shall we change all ADs to "In the year of our Lord"? No, that would be nonsense - but that is what some are insisting we retain. Truly pathetic. Robsteadman 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the most bloated response, but I'll respond here quickly...while you may not regard consensus [note the proper spelling of the word], as "good", it is, nonetheless, one of the core operating principles of Wikipedia. < signing: > Tomertalk 09:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Viriditas | Talk 06:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC). Consensus.
  • Guettarda 09:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC) As per JimWae.
  • SOPHIA 09:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC) If there is a system that has worked then stick with it
  • Leifern 13:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Please respect consensus.
  • Kuratowski's Ghost 14:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Personally dropping BC/AD would be even better but lets stick with concesus.
  • —Aiden 22:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Stick to previous compromise.
  • Settled policy. There's no need to keep re-opening this matter. — goethean ॐ 01:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Per JimWae. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Use AD/CE and BC/BCE. Both usages are very common in scholarly circles and will help when people come to the wiki from other sources. --CTSWyneken 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • KHM03 12:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The compromise appears to be the best chance for peace. I agree with goethean that doesn't need to be constantly revisited. Wesley 13:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the compromise. It may not be unanimous consensus, but it has kept the peace on this highly contentious issue, and should continue to do so. I'd also like to take this opportunity to commend Sam Spade for biting his tongue... Image:Tongue.png (look at the name of the image file for the full multimeaning of my statement there... :-)) Tomertalk 09:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer to use the NPoV BCE/CE, as I've often argued in the past, but the compromise is a better solution than exclusive use of BC/AD. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsensical

AD is POV and should not be used. Wikipedia guidelines say we should not be using POV. Another vote - how origianl and how pointless - particularly when ALL the options are not offered - a POV vote and therefore a meaningless vote. Robsteadman 09:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, it looks like the current system wins hands down, how much longer will you keep this "Must...destroy....AD and BC...." thing up rob? Homestarmy 14:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Until a offensive and outdated POV system is replaced. Robsteadman 14:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What if I found numbers to be offensive because the number 1 looks kind of like the middle finger and I said that since numbers are so old the system is outdated, and then said because of this, we should all convert to a limburger cheese counting system to replace numbers? Homestarmy 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not the only person who feels the system should change. EVen if you cannot see the offence of having a label which allows "christians" to laud it over others you must surely see that it is POV? Robsteadman 15:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But that's just it, we aren't trying to laud it over anybody, and any dating system inherintly has a POV, the POV of informing whoever looks at it of what the date is! Does AD and BC inform the reader of what the date is? By all means! Do I regularily laud the existance of the AD BC system over people as a shining example of Christian superiority? By no means! If someone is lauding this over you, they probably need something better to do with their time. Homestarmy 15:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case let's have the Muslim calendar dates, teh Jewish calendar, etc. all included.... or would that eb ridiculous? Having a system where the label states ""In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ" is lauding it. It is saying that "christianity" is more important and superior. AD is POV. CE and BCE are NPOV because they do not express favour to any one grouping from within society. Robsteadman 15:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

AD and BC are more recognizable and understood than Muslim or Jewish calender dates. The label also only says In the year of our Lord, I have no idea how the AD article got 3 more words out of it, but it is supposed to be Anno Domini. CE and BCE express clear favor to those who do not like AD or BC which is by default a grouping, otherwise, nobody would be advocating for the change as there would be no group. Furthermore, BCE and CE was invented by the Jews as I understand it, specifically by your reasoning since they didn't like the idea of Christ. Their opinion was the only reason that it was ever created, it was not a big council of scientists agreeing upon a neutral dating system to unite the world, it was by people with just as much a religious agenda as the people who made AD and BC. When AD and BC were first created, I would agree it was a clear signal that Christianity was the most important, but of course it could only be applied inside their own realm. As Christianity spread to most of the globe, most of the world just happened to pick it up, Christian or not apparently. If you wish to personally use BCE and CE, we can't stop you. However, this article is not personal, it is based on consensus, which so far clearly states AD/CE and BC/BCE. At any rate, advocating BCE and CE is not, no matter how much people want it, advocating an NPOV, as no matter how distanced it gets from its Jewish roots, you cannot erase history, it will always be a Jewish comprimise system. Since you do not buy the argument that time has dissasociated AD and BC from requiring religious acknowladgement, I see no reason why I, in turn, should not buy the same from BCE and CE. Just because it doesn't have religion inside the abbreviation doesn't mean I can ignore history after all, so in a way, whenever you advocate BCE and CE, you advocate a Jewish dating system, whether it does or does not have anything at face value to do with Judaim is irrelevant, they invented it, it therefore was created for Judaism. Going from one dating system created by a religion to another created by a separate religion does not NPOV make. Homestarmy 16:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Anno Domini is an abbreviation in itself for Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ") - do read the Wikipedia page about it. CE and BCE is an attempt to have neautrality - it is NOT favouring one group over another. The article shoyuld be based on NPOV verifiable fact (it fall short at many points) - but AD is POV whether you agree or not. I am amazed so many "christians" are so blind to teh offence such things cause and how biased it makes things appear - or maybe they do see and simply want to keep it biased? Robsteadman 16:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedai article on Common Era:

"According to Peter Daniels (a Cornell University and University of Chicago trained linguist): CE and BCE came into use in the last few decades, perhaps originally in Ancient Near Eastern studies, where (a) there are many Jewish scholars and (b) dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant. It is indeed a question of sensitivity. However, the term "common era" has earlier antecedents. A 1716 book by English Bishop John Prideaux says, "The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation." In 1835, in his book Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell, wrote "The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days." In its article on Chronology, the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia uses the sentence: "Foremost among these (dating eras) is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living."

It seems it goes back a longw ay and is nothing to do with political correctness - a cheap slur put about by people when they are wrong. Robsteadman 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it had anything to do with just PC, I was saying it was compleatly invented as a response and/or construct of Judaism, it had nothing to do with people making an earnest effort to avoid offense and create an NPOV atmosphere in a scientific community, it has everything to do with people making comprimises because the Jews didn't like the idea of Christ! Homestarmy 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Then, as I have showm you are wrong - it is not a Jewish invention. I find that comment dangerously close to be anti_semitic.Robsteadman 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You do realize, don't you, that both the content and tone in this is completely offensive? The modern notation is not intended to placate "the Jews" who "don't like the idea of Christ." It is intended to remove a presumption of religious conviction from secular affairs. Insisting on it is like insisting that every business deal has to be closed by attending Catholic mass, or that all public servants in every country must profess a particular faith. --Leifern 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not basing this merely on personal opinion or conjecture, the CE article clearly states it was invented so that Christians wouldn't offend Jews when they were evangelizing to them, if you've got a beef with offensiveness, don't look at me, go change the CE article! Just because it doesn't mean that as much now doesn't mean that was not how it was invented, it started POV, Rob says that thousands of years did not remove POV from AD and BC, therefore, I see no reason why I should agree that CE and BCE are also not POV! Homestarmy 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that is not what it states. It states that Jews - and this goes for all non-Christians - did not want evangelical content in secular affairs. Forcing someone to say - even with abbreviations - that this is the year of our Lord 2006 is an imposition. The "thousands of years" you talk about a) take place almost entirely in Europe; b) are characterized by religious discrimination and persecution that range from shameful to horrifying. I would think we'd all want to put those thousands of years behind us. An equivalent imposition on Christians would be to insist that we all write that today is the 7th of Shevat, 5766. Though that wouldn't quite rise to the level of imposition, because there is nothing in the Hebrew date notation that explicitly says "since the Creation began." It's just a number. --Leifern 18:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If people want to say BCE or CE themselves, as i've said, that is ok, it is not that horrible. But when you try to thrust your opinion against consensus, which already has undergone an acceptable comprimise on a, quite frankly, extraordinarily tiny and relatively irrelevant issue in an article which really should come above such disputes, then we have a problem, if writing AD and BC was such an imposition, either most of the world would be compleatly Christian, (It isn't.) or much of the world would not of used a dating system before BCE and CE were invented, as there were no other Christ-centric systems which correspond with the system everyone in the western world can understand and knows about. Homestarmy 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ????? Are you not aware most of the world has had other calendars & epochs? A brief perusal of Common Era would make that clear! In the last 2 centuries or so, people have tried to develop common standardized measurement systems. If they cannot agree on a common date, they will have trouble fulfilling contracts & meeting appointments. The Western calendar has become the de facto world standard for commerce and information. NEEDLESSLY imposing ALSO the religious context upon which it was begun is not in the interests of international relations --JimWae 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

People used to like watching the BLACK & WHITE MINSTREL SHOW - doesn't mean it was right or reasonable but a concensus thought ti good wholesome fun. People used to like attending public hanging - doesn't mean it was right or reasonable but a concensus thought it ok. People used to think caning schoolchildren was good practice - doesn't mean it was right or reasonable but a concensus thought it good wholesome fun. Sometimes concensus is wrong - the majority is not always right. In this case it is wrong. AD is POV and offensive. Robsteadman 18:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Now you've gone into a false analogy, are you telling me that AD and BC, not Christianity, but the dating system AD/BC, has caused racism, public hanging, caning, and the like? And another thing, all throughout this argument, you have repeatedly asserted that AD is POV and offensive, implying that every single person in the world who uses it is purposefully or not offending people. If it wasn't for the Bible telling us that pride is unnaceptable, your frequent assertion of what I and many other people believe is your compleatly earnest and very anti-Christian lie designed to paint us all as racists, and child-beaters, you would be grievously offending ME. -______- Homestarmy 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Now you;re putting words into my mouth. Please don't. Most people who use AD don;t realise that it is offensive - taht doesn't mean it is not. Most people don;t think that it is expressing an opinion to use AD - doesn't mean it doesn't. As for you missing the point about the examples I use - I'm guessing, as you don;t appear stupid, that that is deliberate. Just because people liked certain things doesn't make it right. Come off it - you are putting offensive words into my oputh and taking offence where there is none. You have been told by severeal editors that AD is POV - maybe it's worth accepting it. You like AD - because it allows your "faith" to show dominance? Because it is right to show things in "christian" terms? Because it has been for 1500 years so why change it? AD is POV. AD is offensive to non-"christians". Robsteadman 19:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I liked AD at the start because it was simple, everyone else used it, our teachers taught us to use it, all historical dates I learned were under this system, and therefore, I assumed it was probably a real good idea to use it. I didn't even notice that Christ thing much, nobody brought it up much that I can remember. I was not a Christian at that time, in fact, I was actually extremely greedy when it came to sunday school or Christianity in general, and I maintain sunday school was not very good for me in terms of saving my soul, I could of gone so close to becoming some hard-core atheist it's not even funny, not that it could be anyway. Neither AD nor BC led me to Christ, and in fact, it was years later after becoming a Christian until I even remember hearing the first inkling of this debate. This is why I do not see why it is so obvious as you make it out to be that AD is offensive, because it wasn't offensive to me for years, I never even thought about it for years, I never saw anyone say anything about it for years, so I see no reason why AD and BC go into the rank of offensive, along with racism, child beating, hatred, religious persecution, and limburger cheese. The word offensive naturally contains all those things, if you had said you felt AD and BC only mildly or slightly offensive, then it wouldn't be in that category, but simply saing "It is offensive" implies that it is just as bad as everything else the world mostly deems offensive, it doesn't define a range, even if you have an idea that it is not in that range, we cannot see into your head, and in these sort of debates, people naturally want to assume the worst, I wanted to assume you were putting us in the class of racists,(And apparently I was quite mistaken) and you want to assume that AD and BC proponents are unwittingly causing a greivous deal of offense. Homestarmy 19:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    • To add my 2¢, I'm solidly atheist, but have no major deal about the terminology. It's just words, and reflects the fact that in the west, our calendar is dated from a presumed religious event. No amount of renaming the terms will change any more than the fact that some people might be upset at the norse religious roots in "Wednesday" and "Thursday". Would you rename them too? I suppose in an ideal world, I might like to see CE/BCE used for everything, but Robsteadman, sometimes we need to comprimise and sometimes it's not practical to change things. If you cannot comprimise on matters of import to you, your stay on Wikipedia will not be long, and it will be unpleasant. In my long stay here, I can name a number of instances where I didn't get my way, and even though some of them still irk me a bit, I got over it. --Improv 08:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It does not matter how "obvious" the POV is to anyone - the meaning (whether any few people know it or not) is itself POV. This is supposed to be a scholarly work & the meaning of the terms used is presumed to be known - at least by the authors. The only group CE favors is the group advocating NPOV -- which several here have even stated is not their goal. The main reason most people oppose dropping BC/AD is that it would mean their group would no longer be favored. --JimWae 20:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Before you try to re-argue this, please read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate#Origins_of_the_Debate. Slrubenstein dealt with the issue at length and explained the issue clearly. There's no point in ansking questions that have already been answered several times. The whole anti-Christian argument is ridiculous. While I accept and embrace the "Truth" of the assertions, I see no reason to impose my POV on others. To argue that we must promote or support Christianity is antithetical to the purpose of this project. On the other hand, if you assert that BC and AD to have no religious meaning any more, then there is absolutely no reason to hold on to the system. Either it has meaning to you and your interest in including it is POV-pushing, or it has no meaning to you - and if that's the case, why do you even care what usage is in place? Guettarda 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the issue has been dealt with at length why does the end result end up going against the supposed NPOV side? If everyone really found it was POV and pointless one would think the policy would be to change everything, regardless of how a vote went, like Rob is saying. And I don't see how the system has no reason for existance anymore just because it is generally now dissasociated with Christianity, it would take a humungous amount of money to change all the textbooks, statues, gravestones, etc. etc. in the entire world to get to a system that has the exact same number of years and usability that supposedly most of Europe doesn't even know about or care about, and then you'd just have to start the same debate all over again with the Hebrew system, the Islamic system, all the other systems, and so on and so forth, wasting even more money to make everyone change everything, until the entire world is united under BCE and CE, and then at the end, what have you really gained? Is it worth all that effort, not to you personally, but in the grand scheme of things? Homestarmy 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • that's why those who advocate a NPOV change do not insist on changing the marker year - the "conversion" is simple -- and not even necessary where AD was not originally written - there is no need to change every book ever written - just future ones --JimWae 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • there is if people feel AD and BC are imposing religious ideologies on them and manage to get public opinion on their side, it could take hundreds of years for everything with AD and BC on it to just go away on their own, and in the meantime, you would have people insisting they are being constantly offended for basically their whole lives and their childrens lives. Homestarmy 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • it's not enough to "feel offended" -- there has to be reasonable grounds. The offense felt here comes from "loss of preference" --JimWae 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So if the dating system stops being one that is supposedly giving Christian people preference as opposed to one that is giving people the non-religious preference they want, how is this not in turn a POV? Homestarmy 22:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • it is not just the non-religious that advocate it. It is an attempt to use a system shared in common. It gives preference to no group, it gives preference to NPOV--JimWae 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And NPOV advocates are not a group because.....?Homestarmy 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • doesn't matter if you call them a group or not - NPOV is policy here --JimWae 22:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On your earlier post, BCE and CE are not shared in common currently, and why was the overwhelming consensus on the CE/BCE vs. AD/BC not to follow the NPOV policy assuming BCE and CE are really NPOV? What is it that stopped the policy from simply going "Ok, AD and BC are clearly POV and BCE and CE are not, no more AD or BC ever."? Homestarmy 22:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • the vote was toward BCE/CE, but not by lots - the consensus was to compromise and get on with other things rather than beat each other over the head endlessly - something the AD side still persists in, while only a few on the CE side do --JimWae 22:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • All I know is, I am perfectly fine with BC/BCE and AD/CE in this article, but that was not what Rob wanted, Rob clearly stated, many times, that he personally feels that AD and BC are POV, and therefore all dates must be only BCE or CE, THAT was the problem, and if you look at the history, he only adds in dates with just BCE or CE. Would I like the article to be only AD and BC? Absolutly! Am I ok with it contining to be AD/CE and BC/BCE? Also absolutly! Do I think I have a reasonable chance to make it only AD and BC? By no means! I am not advocating going against the consensus to AD and BC only, I am advocating against going to CE and BCE only, that is what Rob wants to do, he has made it quite clear that consensus does not matter to him and that the supposed POV nature of AD and BC make them disqualified to ever be used in his opinion, together with CE and BCE or not. And that is the issue, if I come off too strongly for AD and BC, it's because I personally feel that CE and BCE are just PC gone awry, but I am not opposed to leaving the article currently as it is, while Rob is. I'll argue for just BC and AD for miles, but i'll also acknowladge and enforce the consensus in this case without really supporting CE and BCE, while Rob is advocating going to just BCE and CE. Homestarmy 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)