Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Commandments"

Revision as of 00:48, January 1, 2007

Archives

Archive 1

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-CE and BCE are not "anti-Christian." They are merely '''not''' Christian.
+==Archives==
+[[TCC Archive 1|Archive 1]]
-In point of fact, AD and BC are just counts from an arbitrary starting point. They do not measure years relative to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, who was born in 4 BC.
-AD and BC reflect an historical tradition in the part of the world once known as "Christendom." England no longer has an established church and the United States never had one. To some Christians, they are a pleasant tradition that reminds them of the special status Christianity once enjoyed. There's no reason for people who like them not to use them.
-And if the people running Conservapedia prefer them, fine.  It is a matter of preference, and you're entitled to honor your own preferences on your own site.
-That's no reason to label CE and BCE as "anti-Christian." They're just neutral, that's all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:43, 19 December 2006 (EST)
-First of all, thank you Dpbsmith for your polite and thoughtful postings, which have usually conformed to the simple rules here.  I've enjoyed several of your edits very much, such as the one about the Nicene Creed.
-:Thanks. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:42, 19 December 2006 (EST)
-In response to your comment above, CE and BCE are "anti-Christian" just as calling President Bush by some other title would be "anti-Bush".  It's a fact that our dates are based on the birth of Jesus.  We have a recent entry explaining the small error that you mention above, which does not change the undisputed fact that Jesus's birth is the source of the dating.
-People may not like Jesus, but it's anti-Jesus and anti-Christian to deny the basis for our calendar dates.  Anti-Christians are free to invent their own dating system, but if they use 1492 after the approximate birth of Christ then it's anti-Christian to deny what that 1492 means.  --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 19 December 2006 (EST)
-P.S. The entry explaining the dating error is [[Dionysis the Little]] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 19 December 2006 (EST)
-:'''Reply''' Although America has no established church, Christianity plays a huge roll in our longstanding culture. e.g. '''''Christ'''''mas and Easter, BC and AD. It is against these Christian roots that modern-day political correctness is fighting, against established traits of america such as "Under God" in the pledge of allegence and "In God We Trust" on our money. To replace AD and BC with something else is decidedly anti-Christian
-[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]
-::You can make out a case for America's roots being ''theist'' or ''deist'' or something of that sort. Our money indeed says "In God We Trust."
-::What it does '''not''' say is ''IHS'' or ''In Hoc Signo Vinces,'' and with all the various symbols on various coins and bills you will not find a cross or a fish. The flag of the U. S. bears no religious symbols. The Declaration of Independence makes reference to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and "the Creator," but not to Christ or Christianity. The Constitution does not mention God at all, in any way, and mentions religion only to say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Pledge of Allegiance originally did not mention God at all; at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, the words "under God" were added, but notice that even the Knights of Columbus did not suggest adding anything about Christianity to the pledge.
-::Christianity is certainly '''part''' of the cultural heritage and tradition of the United States.  And as far as that goes, AD and BC are widely used in public documents. CE and BCE are generally used in academic contexts, by historians. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is currently, but I believe it's the same as for U. S. versus British spelling: there's no overall rule; it's whatever is used by the editors who first bring the article up to reasonable length. The only rule is not to ''change'' the usage in an established article. I think that's right, but it's not anything I need to know much about so I haven't double-checked the relevant policies lately.
-::Actually, yeah, the policy is just what I just said http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Eras
-::Anyone who goes around changing BC/AD to BCE/CE en masse is just as much of a jerk as anyone who does the reverse.
-:::'''Reply''': You say above that "What it does '''not''' say is ''IHS'' or ''In Hoc Signo Vinces''" But in reality ''IHS'' was a symbol of the knights templar and '''not''' Christianity.
---[[User:ChrisS|The Unknown One]] 19:48, 21 December 2006 (EST)
-::There's no reason why this any of this should be a big deal. Getting along with good-faith editors who disagree with you should be a lot easier than loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you.
-::And as a practical matter, in terms of influencing the behavior of those who come to edit Conservapedia, I really doubt that it would make much difference in what people will actually do if you were to say
-:::In Conservapedia, please use BC and AD when indicating the era of a date.
-::or
-:::As a Christian site, Conservapedia prefers BC and AD, rather than BCE and CE which it regards as non-Christian
-::rather than
-:::When referencing to dates, you must use BC and AD not CE and BCE, which are anti-Christian.
-::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 19 December 2006 (EST)
-:::Reply:  Dpbsmith, you make some interesting points, and I considered agreeing with your suggestion to change the Commandments.  But I still feel that BCE and CE deny the factual meaning of the date.  Other dating systems are welcome to non-Christians.  But dates that use the Christian calendar should give credit where it is due.  That's true whether someone is a Christian or not.  If I used a Buddhist date then I would acknowledge that.
-:::The Commandments are all written as commands.  So while softer language may be more polite or politically correct, it is refreshing when someone directly says what he means.  "You must use ..." on this site is clear and accurate.
-:::Wikipedia, like the French Revolution, has become dominated by hostility to Christianity.  So while its policy may appear to be egalitarian, in practice it is anything but.  Wikipedia policies permit selective enforcement of complex rules.
-:::You might check out my recent entry on [[Creation]].
-:::--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 20 December 2006 (EST)
-::::Thanks for listening. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:55, 20 December 2006 (EST)
-:::::Dpbsmith, I reflected further on your criticism, which was well-taken.  Accordingly, I have changed the Commandment #4 in response to your criticism as follows:     4.  When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, you must give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are not acceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis for the date.
-:::::Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to Conservapedia.  --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 20 December 2006 (EST)
-I like this wording. It does not sound as negative as the last one yet still makes a strong point.
-[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]
-I propose changing to the following wording.
-When referencing any date, you must give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are not acceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis for the date.
-I think the current wording "When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus" Leaves a loophole for people to reference dates in other ways.
-All dates should be in B.C./A.D. Format.
-[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]]
-:I don't know, Tim.  I think your version lacks the full explanation of mine.  Some other calendar dating systems may be appropriate in certain circumstances, such as which Chinese year we are in now.  I don't feel strongly about it, however. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)
-::You need to make the statement clear, which I believe it is now, not to close every loophole that an ingenious mischief-maker could crawl through.
-::If someone reads what is there now and then goes ahead and uses something other than B. C. or A. D., it's not because the instructions weren't clear. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:58, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Commandments"

Revision as of 00:48, January 1, 2007

Archives

Navigation menu

Search