27
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 268:
Line 268: + + +
no edit summary
: People can use whatever system of dates they like. But if they use the Christian dating system, then honesty requires stating its source: BC and AD, not something that erases the basis of the dates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
: People can use whatever system of dates they like. But if they use the Christian dating system, then honesty requires stating its source: BC and AD, not something that erases the basis of the dates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
==Other Reasons==
If someone says they were born in 1942, but they were really born in 1940, but they stick with 1942, they are lying. To say they travelled abroad in 1940 and travelled ALSO in 1942, this is acceptable. Christ was only born as a human once. Because of the bad mathematics, BC is a bad terminology. Imagine saying then that from now on, we'll use pharaoh's cubit's to measure the distance light travels in a second, or we'll use the speed that it takes for the light to reflect from the moon and back and average it out over a few years. It's like using a ruler made of jello. Christ wasn't born on BC or AD, or even in between (whatever the hell we'd call that! Zero maybe?), so we can't say he was. It's not a major issue, but if there is going to be a whole article on how we should use BC/AD instead of CE/BCE, I totally disagree. May as throw out the IUPAC measurement systems too, and go back to Dalton's Plum Pudding model of the atom.