Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 109739	2010-05-21 03:24:00	The Gregorian Calenedar	Roscoe (6288)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
886786	2010-05-21 03:24:00	The Gregorian calendar, which has been in widespread use for about the last 1,210 years traditionally uses the birth of Christ as the beginning, AD1 (year one) which is based on the reckoned year of the birth of Jesus with AD denoting years after the start of the epoch, and BC denoting years before the start of the epoch. It is ironic, is it not, that in a world that purports to be increasingly secular, the years are counted as years after the birth of Jesus Christ – anno domini - and any years before the birth of Christ is known as just that: BC, before Christ. I’m surprised that there has not been a secular movement denying the story of Christ and, for that reason, how ridiculous it is to base our modern day calendar on an event that most sceptics will emphatically tell you never happened. And yet those same sceptics seem willing to continue using a calendar based on what they consider a myth. Perhaps they would prefer to base their calendar on an event that they are certain happened, such as the birth of Julius Cæsar. That would make this year 1910. If they did use Julius Cæsar as the basis for their new calendar they could most probably use the same abbreviations, as he too, has the initials J.C.	Roscoe (6288)
886787	2010-05-21 03:38:00	And the same as my initials! :D And we would only have another 90 years to prepare for Y2K all over again...	johcar (6283)
886788	2010-05-21 05:02:00	Once a system becomes entrenched it is virtually impossible to change it. Think of all the computer systems that would need to be reprogrammed! And compare with the computer keyboard - where is the logic of learning the ABC consecutive alphabet and then having to type on a mixed up illogical keyboard? And wouldn't a 16 digit numbering system be more sensible to fit in better with computer logic? Imagine the fun rejigging telephones for 16 numeric buttons and the international arguments that would arise from trying to name the new numbers! (You couldn't use 11,12,13.... since they are derived from the existing set of numbers.) And what would it all do to the tax system and interest payments!!	coldot (6847)
886789	2010-05-21 05:50:00	those same sceptics seem willing to continue using a calendar based on what they consider a myth. Be a bit tricky if some of us suddenly decided it was the year 90000039847574584 instead wouldn't it?	pctek (84)
886790	2010-05-21 06:11:00	Oh well, Roscoe is on another religious troll... Despite what you say, no reputable historian denies the birth of a person that some people revere as Jesus Christ. The only real disputes are about whether there is a god, and whether Jesus was her son, and of course about the issues of parthenogenesis and resurrection. The Gregorian calendar survives because it is bloody good, and because it would be such a major hassle to change to another system. Mind you, some never changed to the Gregorian calendars - there are heaps of others around. It seems to have passed you by, but there has already been a revolt against using BC and AD, whilst retaining the estimated birth year of Jesus as a key reference point. Lots of sources no longer use BC and AD. See Wikipedia: Calendars in widespread use today include the Gregorian calendar, which is the de facto international standard, and is used almost everywhere in the world for civil purposes, including in the People's Republic of China and India (along with the Indian national calendar). Due to the Gregorian calendar's obvious connotations of Western Christianity, non-Christians and even some Christians sometimes justify its use by replacing the traditional era notations "AD" and "BC" ("Anno Domini" and "Before Christ") with "CE" and "BCE" ("Common Era" and "Before Common Era"). The next stage of this thread will be for Roscoe to get up in arms about people denying Christ's divinity - it is Roscoe that has this track record isn't it?	John H (8)
886791	2010-05-21 06:22:00	Roscoe, You were a bit out with the timing - the Gregorian calendar only got ratified in 1582. Lucky there weren't computers around then, as the first measure adopted was to drop 10 days from the calendar, as this was the offset between the date & the vernal equinox accumulated for over 1000 years using the older Julian calendar. That would have made the Y2K transition look pretty insignificant! As for basing the calendar on a real event, well, even though it's (mostly) a myth, it's an extremely well-entreched one, and you have to start somewhere. Even the Muslim world can't ignore the "Christian" calendar for that reason, even though they have their own one (it's currently 1431AH - After Hijra).	MushHead (10626)
886792	2010-05-21 06:38:00	One of my first programming jobs was to write a little routine to change the date from Julian to Gregorian. I have decided to use the Mayan calendar for my normal day to day use however.	Sweep (90)
886793	2010-05-21 06:44:00	MushHead, Thank you. I stand corrected. Nice to have some constructive comments. Be a bit tricky if some of us suddenly decided it was the year 90000039847574584 instead wouldn't it? You're right. It would be a bit time consuming writing today's date as 21/5/90000039847574584, particularly on a cheque.:D	Roscoe (6288)
886794	2010-05-21 06:46:00	I’m surprised that there has not been a secular movement denying the story of Christ and, for that reason, how ridiculous it is to base our modern day calendar on an event that most sceptics will emphatically tell you never happened. And yet those same sceptics seem willing to continue using a calendar based on what they consider a myth. The historic origins are irelevant, and to us heathens :D it is simply a well established and reliable means of recording the passage of time. How many people actually know what AD stands for either. (It stands for Anno Domini and is medieval latin meaning "In the year of [the or our] Lord".) Quite frankly, who gives a toss, so long as the sun sets at night and rises in the morning. Most people have more important issues to occupy their mind. To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, Roscoe, sometimes a calendar is just a calendar. Cheers Billy 8-{) :stare:	Billy T (70)
886795	2010-05-21 09:41:00	Perhaps they would prefer to base their calendar on an event that they are certain happened, such as the birth of Julius Cæsar. That would make this year 1910. No, it would make it the year 2110.	decibel (11645)
1 2