2. the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament (used chiefly in versions of the New Testament).

Yeah... right there is the problem... Since according to ALL Jewish sects, it does NOT mean that.

I know he's a religious figure, not just some calendar thing, but I don't think we need to centralize his being as the centerpoints of history is what I meant.

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean, Daganev. "Since according to ALL Jewish sects" = agrees with the above number 2? Do you mean, "Since, according to ALL Jewish sects, the above is not necessarily true"?

I'm glad this got into calenders and away from the death penalty before I saw it, because I don't feel like getting into an argument.

Oddly, Daganev has a point. Christ is an appelation derived from the Greek Xristos, which means annointed one and was used as a synonym for the Hebrew equivalent. It literally means Messiah. When we say BC - before Christ, we are tacitly acknowledging that Jesus WAS the Messiah which the Jews believe has still not yet come. If I was a Jew, I can see that that might piss me off. In fact, it would really piss me off.

Unfortunately, I am -not- a Jew. I happen to like the tradition of BC and AD, it's done us just fine for many centuries, and I like seeing the past in the present. Thus, from my point of view the various politically correct moaners can live with it and, in the words of Murphy.... ....well you know the words of Murphy.

Incidentially, AD - lit. In the Year of our Lord - starts at the year 1. Thus, the day of Christ's birth (which was probably about AD 5, historians reckon) was the start of AD 1. There was no AD 0 (because that would be daft). Thus, contrary to the beliefs of the British Media and Proleteriat, 2000 was NOT the millenium, the millenium was 2001.

It has nothing to do with being politically correct, and everything to do with rejecting Jesus as some mythical figure.

That would depend on your perspective, Daganev.

Wait, so we're talking about religion and calendars now?

Way to derail the thread. Well, probably saves it from a sudden death in flames.

Explain?

BC and AD have religious overtones of accepting christianity.

using BCE and CE is used in places where people are not chrsitain, because they don't acceept Jesus as either Messiah or lord.

If christains used BCE and CE then I can see your point, but I don't think they do.

January=Move dedicated to the Roman God Janus
Feburary=Refers to a Roman holy festival (Februa)
March=Month dedicated to the Roman God Mars
April=Aphrodite
May=Maius, Roman god of rebrith
June-Juno, chief Roman diety
July and August named after Ceaser and Agustus, and then the rest are just numbers.

So, if we are going to make a big deal about BC and AD, might as well make a big deal about the first 6 months of the year. I don't recognize any of those Gods as real... does me using their name as part of the month indicate I do?

It is merely a name. There was a man, who was named by history as Jesus Christ... that at this point is not something to be denied, as their are Roman records regarding his death and cruxifiction.

Christ is an english bastardization of a Greek word... if language is going to offend you, then you need to figure out why it offends. Xristos does not mean messiah, it means sanctified, or 'holy one.' It is assumed to mean messiah because of its association with Jesus, and Christianity. So... if you take Christ from the roots, it just means Sanctified, or prophet, or whatever you want. Muslems and Hindu religion both acknowledge Christ as a prophet of some form, and I know some Jweish sects (not all, and I am not familier with the Jewish religion to remember which ones do.) also recognize him as at least a deeply holy figure.

Is BC and AD really that bad? Furthermore, if a name is so offensive, then should we be offended by every Mexican named Jesus... after all does that not imply that Christ was born, and should that not offend Jweish peoples?

The days of the week are also named after the Norse pantheon.

Thursday = Thors Day
Friday = Freya's day (or was it Frigga's day?)

etc

Are these serious comparisons, because they don't sound like it.

The hebrew words for Messiah.. Moshiach, mean the EXACT same thing that Xristos does.

Secondly Jesus != Christ There is a world of difference between those two terms. History does not name him "Jesus Christ", History names him "Jesus of Nazereth"... Christains, name him "christ"

January, march, april ect... None of those mean Janus OUR LORD, or anything that would imply a relationship between the month and the person.

Er, what?

A.D = "In the Year of our Lord" (emphasis added)

anno Domini Jesu Chrisi is the latin... Year of our lord is only one possible transtion.

anno=year
Domini=is Lord/Father also an honorary to those of who are older then you.

The rest is obvious

Due to Latin's limited vocabulary compared to english, it could mean:

In the year of our father Jesus Christ (Which would be christian still... but would b e incorrect as he is the son.)

Your of our lord

Or, year of Jesus Christ, who has earned our respect.

But that is besides the point...

I brought up the months because if we are going to censor one thing because of a religious connotation, we need to censor ALL things with a religious connotation. We can not have crosses, even though many religions use the cross in a non-christian way. (In modern and ancient Mayan religion, a cross shape respresents the Tree of Life.) We can not have any second pointed stars. A lot of our state flags have to be changed because they have saint crosses on them. We have to goto our military grave yards and pull out all of the tombstones that have crosses, stars, or moons on them, and replace them with neutrual symbols.

Kosher food should not be labeled, because Kosher is a religious concept and it might offend someone because they have to see it. We need to take all mention of David, Jesus, Mohammad, Buddah, etc... out of history, as someone might be offended.

The fact here is this. The AD-BC does not matter. Like the months of the year, AD and BC do not have the meaning they used to. They are no different then calling a meter a meter. It is just another measurement for the purposes of tracking the amount of years from a certain point.

The funny thing is, even if BCE and CE ever becomes the 'true' method, they still pivot around the same time, so... might as well keep AD and BC.

Because we know very well what it means, and pretending it 'could mean something else' is pointless.

Nobody is forcing you to eat kosher food or put a star of David on your grave. Although the state flag thing might be a good idea.

Yes, it doesn't matter. We should still be using the Discordian calendar anyway, since it's better.

So to put the topic back on track... Saddam was in court today again, and guess what he was spouting.

Was it, A. I am the presidant of Iraq.. FEER ME! or B. Why can't we be friends?



Answer B... the death penalty may not deter crime, but it sure does make people change thier song!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...wiraqreport.pdf


If you can be bothered to read all 90 odd pages, you've got more stamina (and time) than I have, but I found the conclusion to be apt.

"The court's conduct, as documented in this report, reflects a bsic lack of understanding of fundamental fair trial principles, and how to uphold them in the conduct of a relatively complex trial. The result is a trial that did not meet key fair trial standards. Under such circumstances, the soundness of the verdict is questionable. In addition, the imposition of the death penalty - an inherently cruel and unhumane punishment - in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible."

Spot on, imho.

How is the death penalty cruel and inhumane? People die all the time. They starve on the street, get beaten to death by their husbands, contract AIDs because their partner never told them they had it, the list goes on and on. And we're fighting a war that's costing us hundreds of billions of dollars when if we put even a fraction of that to solving social problems we'd be justified in thinking we're the best country in the damn world.

Saddam, I don't care what they do. I don't care about Iraq. Prioritize a bit, bastards.

I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument.

- First you ask why the death penalty is cruel and inhumane.
- Then you list a series of other cruel and inhumane circumstances.

Is your point that because cruel and inhumane things happen all the time we should not care to stop them? Or perhaps we should become calloused against inhumanity and ignore it?

Anyway, that's not why I quoted the article. The death penalty argument isn't one I want to get into - I argued earlier in this thread that a mistrial of such collosal proportions was going to have adverse consequences on a society that was attempting to re-establish law, order, and a decent justice system. It was in that context that I put in the link above.

What exactly would they have liked to happen in the trial to make it fair?

Saddam refused to make any case. He just got up there and told everybody he is the President of Iraq, all bow before him.