Eurasia or not

[Crackpot]

What about Mu?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Beaten last night at home by Spurs 1-2

The earth shifted

[Long Run]

The earth shifted

Isn't that usually a good thing?

[liberty]

That would be like using the Sahara as a dividing line between Northern and Sub-Saharan Africa and classifying them as two separate continents. They are the sane continent

Emphasis added


Obviously you've never lived here!

“Well hardy har har, one of these days Norton one of these days, pop zoom to the noon.”

Every time I hear 'Eurasia" I shall say "gesundheit"

Well, General I realized a long time ago I had no future in writing. I am satisfied if I can make myself understood even if you may have to do a little deciphering. Believe it or not I did proof read it. However, whether I can trust my eyes or not the truth of my ideas still stand; Eurasia is a reality for all who have a logical mind.

There is an academic construct that I do disagree with that has been coming for about the last twenty years or so. It is the effort to replace BC and AD with BCE and CE in dating events in history. I see no need for it. The previous system is logical and works just fine with our current calendar. It is just another attempt to remove God form any reference in our society.

And are you saying that Africa is not a sane place; you would know better than me, but I might be inclined to agree with you? It is not a place were I would invest money; I might give them some, but would not invest any at least not for the long term.

[oldr_n_wsr]

It is the effort to replace BC and AD with BCE and CE in dating events in history.

Don't know if it's to erase Jesus Christ/God from reference or not. I think it's a bunch of academics sitting around trying to figure out how to justify thier existance (and paycheck).

[Big RR]

Liberty--why does the replacement of BC and AD with BCE and CE bother you? It's still the same period being referred to (at least as I understand it), and it's much more accurate than the previous terms, as some religions are still waiting for the Christ (and adherents of those would still be in BC), and not all religions/persons recognize jesus as lord or god (hence they would not be in AD). When each religion had its own calendar, perhaps it made more sense for christians to use these, but in reality we are using the year designations from a commonly recognized time, which may or may not be the year of the birth of jesus.

[Crackpot]

What about those of us that don't acknowledge Tyr, Thor, Odin or Freja? Or Janus?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Don't F*^& with Thor or Thor with F%^& with you.

[Big RR]

CP--Well, if those are gods of religions still existing to this day, you have a pretty good point about day and month names. Otherwise they are just historical references; like with Julius and Augustus Caesar (hell, they snapped up the summer months in the northern hemisphere, pushing the 7th-10th months to 9th-12th). I'm leaning toward the latter.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I kind of like BCE and CE although I still use BC and AD in theological writing. There's are reasons (Big RR mostly correct there) for treating what used to be AD1 as the first year of the Christian Era. It certainly wasn't when Jesus was born and yet it wasn't the start of the Christian Era either, really. That would probably be best dated somewhere between AD55 and AD60.

Can I phone a friend and then ask the audience Chris?

[liberty]

Liberty--why does the replacement of BC and AD with BCE and CE bother you? It's still the same period being referred to (at least as I understand it), and it's much more accurate than the previous terms, as some religions are still waiting for the Christ (and adherents of those would still be in BC), and not all religions/persons recognize jesus as lord or god (hence they would not be in AD). When each religion had its own calendar, perhaps it made more sense for christians to use these, but in reality we are using the year designations from a commonly recognized time, which may or may not be the year of the birth of jesus.

As said its only purpose is to remove the mention of Christ from history; it adds nothing and instead it takes away. What does “ before the common era” and “ common era” mean? As far as I can see they mean nothing. If a schoolchild should ask, “what does AD mean” then the tacher can say “after the death“. The next logical question is the death of whom. Whether you believe in God or not it is a fact that there once was a man that so impressed his followers that they went on to found a religion based on his teachings. To teach that is not teaching religion it is teaching history.

[liberty]

I kind of like BCE and CE

Why?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah I wasn't clear at all in my facetiousness - I like to think of "Common" as really being "Christian" (although that's not accurate but it makes me happy). Common or Christian is rather like "Eurasia" vs "Europe and Asia" - it's just a thought pattern in people's heads.

You've not quite got AD right. It isn't "after death" it is Anno Domini (sp?) - Year of our Lord. The old idea AIUI is that there was 1 BC - then Christ was born (which I suppose is 0) - and what followed was AD 1. It's inaccurate of course because he appears to have been born somewhere around 4 BC. He was ahead of his time. Unlike Gob who was a head of his time.

Still that brings up an interesting point about how we tag things - such as Eurasia and AD 1. Imagine the first New Year's Day after Christ was born (at point 0). What did they call that exactly (not that they did; but imagine it)? Did they let off fireworks and say "Thank goodness Year Zero is over - let's have fun in One"? Or did they say "Goodbye AD 1 - Happy New Year AD 2? Come to think of it, what was New Year's Day before he was born? Perhaps it was "Well, 1BC is finished in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 - Happy AD 1 everybody!". Enter Guy Lombardo and so on. It must be the latter because (as we all know and agree), the 21st Century did not begin until Jan 1 2001.

As to continents, since all notions are arbitrary, one may as well say there is only one continent called EuroAmerAustralAsiantarctica

[Lord Jim]

I consider this "CE" "BCE" business to be nothing but petty PC crapola, so I treat it the same way I treat all petty PC Crapola...

I ignore it...

It'll be a cold day in hell before I use either of those designations.

[Econoline]

Jim - fine for you...but why get mad if someone who is not a Christian prefers to use "BCE" and "CE" instead of "BC" and "AD"? You don't see Jews, Muslims, or Hindus getting upset when you don't use terminology from their calendars, do you? As for "PC crapola": The expression "Common Era" can be found as early as 1708 in English, and traced back to Latin usage among European Christians to 1615, as vulgaris aerae (and to 1635 in English as "Vulgar Era". Obviously the word "vulgar" had a different meaning back then, but I like it! I think we should start urging everyone in the world to refer to our calendar numbering system as the Vulgar Era.) And use of the CE abbreviation was introduced by Jewish academics in the mid-19th century.

liberty - if you thought "AD" meant "After the Death (of Jesus)" how did you account for the years 1-33 AD?

[Crackpot]

A Duh!

[MajGenl.Meade]

..and just to divert things (or not because none may care)... if it's PC to NOT say "Merry Christmas" why isn't it PC to NOT say "Happy New Year"?

After all, Jan 1st is not a 'new year' for many faith traditions - shouldn't Jewish people or Moslems be upset with this "Happy New Year" crapola? I think the BBC needs to reconsider - it should be "Second Seasons Greetings" or "Happy Other Holiday".

Shouldn't it?

[Big RR]

What did they call that exactly (not that they did; but imagine it)? D

Actually Meade, as i recall, Roman calendar designated January 1 as the new year prior to 250 BC, and certainly prior to the Julian calendar in around 60 BC. How lucky we are that jesus was born a week before then and had his bris on January 1 do the Roman church could designate that day as a holy day (although I don't think it officially recognizes Jesus' bris anymore; perhaps someone who knows better could confirm this?).

As for the designation of BC and AD, I think that came into being around the 6th century AD (CE).

And Lib, I don't think the term CE exists to remove any mention of Jesus from history, but from the recognition that not all who use the calendar recognize him as the Christ or the Lord (Domini/Dominus). I imagine there would be less objection to the use of before jesus and after jesus. although some christians might object to the use of BJ, and many hispanic countries would ask "jesus who"?

Meade--perhaps because it's the New Year of the common era, and not christian new year?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well yeah but that Dec 25 thing is not true (oh I suppose it might be by pure accident) and I doubt that a bris had much to do with anything the Roman church decided. Anyway, Luke has it as "... at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb" (2:21) and presumably that would be Jan 2nd (not that it was), of course. Then again, if day 1 was the day he was born you'd be right on Jan 1 (not that that was either).

I wasn't worried about why Jan 1st is NYear. I was wondering (let's just assume for the sake of the joke that Jesus was born on Dec 25 in the year 1BC) what the following year would be - Zero or AD 1? After all, he wouldn't (by our crazy Western counting) be 1 year old until Dec 25 of that following year - he's somewhere between 0 and 1 before that. So was the Year itself between zero and AD 1?

No - it must have been AD1 right after he was born - happy bris day to you etc. All this of course from looking back - no one had any idea there was a 1 BC or an AD1 until the 16th century or whenever as you say. But our ideas of when the "21st century" (to name one) started depend on whether or not we think there was a Year Zero. Don't they?

[liberty]

The Eurasia Party (Russian: Евразия) was registered as a political party by the Ministry of Justice of Russia on 21 June 2002, approximately one year after the Pan-Russian Eurasia Movement was established by Aleksandr Dugin. This means that the party enjoys full rights within the Russian political process.

Often seen to be a form of National Bolshevism, one of the basic ideas that underpin Eurasian theories is that Moscow, Berlin, and Paris form a "natural" geopolitical axis, because a line or axis from Moscow to Berlin will pass through the vicinity of Paris if extended.

They foresee an eternal world conflict between land and sea, and hence, Dugin believes, the United States and Russia. He says, "In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland (Russia), remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution." According to his 1997 book, The Basics of Geopolitics, "The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilisational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union."

The Eurasia Party was founded by Dugin on the eve of George W. Bush's visit to Russia at the end of May 2002. The party hopes to play a key role in attempts to resolve the Chechen problem, with the objective of setting the stage for Dugin's dream of a Russian strategic alliance with European and Middle Eastern states, primarily Iran.