Conquer Club

I just read something where they used the time reference BP instead of BC. This is certainly a one up on BCE. Kudos to the antichrist scientific community.

what did bp stand for

Before present.

Removes the need to reference someone that was important for about 2000 years. Now it's important for some to find ways to try and bury him again. Why would that be if he was just some guy?

I think we should all just embrace the Star Trek Stardate system.

2dimes wrote:Before present.

Removes the need to reference someone that was important for about 2000 years. Now it's important for some to find ways to try and bury him again. Why would that be if he was just some guy?

Who?

I don't care what system we us for time as long as its consistent. And why should 6 billion people use a christian religious reference when the majority of those people don't believe in christianity anyway?

maasman wrote:I don't care what system we us for time as long as its consistent. And why should 6 billion people use a christian religious reference when the majority of those people don't believe in christianity anyway?

Heh... Although I agree we shouldn't use a christian based anything, or any religion for that matter, christianity(All sects) is by far the majority. Clearly...

Strife wrote:

maasman wrote:I don't care what system we us for time as long as its consistent. And why should 6 billion people use a christian religious reference when the majority of those people don't believe in christianity anyway?

Heh... Although I agree we shouldn't use a christian based anything, or any religion for that matter, christianity(All sects) is by far the majority. Clearly...

How? 2/3 of the world aren't christian.

hecter wrote:

Strife wrote:

maasman wrote:I don't care what system we us for time as long as its consistent. And why should 6 billion people use a christian religious reference when the majority of those people don't believe in christianity anyway?

Heh... Although I agree we shouldn't use a christian based anything, or any religion for that matter, christianity(All sects) is by far the majority. Clearly...

How? 2/3 of the world aren't christian.

I don't know, I had a point but I forgot it. I'll get back to you on that.

2dimes wrote:Before present.

Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?

hecter wrote:I think we should all just embrace the Star Trek Stardate system.

Finally, someone with a sensible suggestion!

Woodruff wrote:

2dimes wrote:Before present.

Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?

Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.

christ was a hoax why would we need to be referring to him ( or it or she )

we could take the scientology sect for that instead ( now enough people to be called a religion )

think about it human people *

2dimes wrote:Before present.

Removes the need to reference someone that was important for about 2000 years. Now it's important for some to find ways to try and bury him again. Why would that be if he was just some guy?

Wut?


Honibaz

Shouldn't the title of this thread be: "Non-Christians, your time is almost up."?

2dimes wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

2dimes wrote:Before present.

Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?

Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.

They're not THAT short, given that "present" last only the tiniest fraction of a second. EVERYTHING is pretty much "before present". My statement about "before present" is already "before present" by the time I finish saying it!

There has to be some fixed point in history to use as a reference. Since we've all gotten by pretty well using BC and AD, it really seems silly to change it now. Using those terms don't in any way relate to a belief in Christ's godhood.

Woodruff wrote:

2dimes wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

2dimes wrote:Before present.

Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?

Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.

They're not THAT short, given that "present" last only the tiniest fraction of a second. EVERYTHING is pretty much "before present". My statement about "before present" is already "before present" by the time I finish saying it!

There has to be some fixed point in history to use as a reference. Since we've all gotten by pretty well using BC and AD, it really seems silly to change it now. Using those terms don't in any way relate to a belief in Christ's godhood.

Yeah it's impossible to change a measurement standard, it's never been successfully done before.

xelabale wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

2dimes wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

2dimes wrote:Before present.

Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?

Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.

They're not THAT short, given that "present" last only the tiniest fraction of a second. EVERYTHING is pretty much "before present". My statement about "before present" is already "before present" by the time I finish saying it!

There has to be some fixed point in history to use as a reference. Since we've all gotten by pretty well using BC and AD, it really seems silly to change it now. Using those terms don't in any way relate to a belief in Christ's godhood.

Yeah it's impossible to change a measurement standard, it's never been successfully done before.

Wut?

Well we've been using the current calender system for over 400 years and the text books you're using are probably only 40 years old so the calender wins for staying power. No?

When discussing trilobites you're only going to be out 50 years or so before the glue in the binding gives way. Not really a factor when the things were here 7 zillion BP or what ever today's radio carbon dating range is.

2dimes wrote:Well we've been using the current calender system for over 400 years and the text books you're using are probably only 40 years old so the calender wins for staying power. No?

When discussing trilobites you're only going to be out 50 years or so before the glue in the binding gives way. Not really a factor when the things were here 7 zillion BP or what ever today's radio carbon dating range is.

I think the earth was in the 3.9-4.2 billion year range by the current estimates. Relatively speaking, I actually think its as close as the 10000 or 6000 year estimates that creationists use. In fact, being off by .3 billion years is pretty damn good compared to a 4000 year difference out of a possible 10000 years...relatively speaking of course. But then, there is a book thats almost as many years old that says thats correct, so I guess....it has to be right?

Anyways. I wouldnt think that BP would work, becuase BP>Beyond Petroleum Co. Inc. probably would not like it. And since they control the oil that was created by God 6000 years ago, and that we can use indiscriminantly without affecting the environment at all, because God controls all of that anyways... Id say we have nothing to worry about from the phrase BP.

Besides, isnt it actually unchristian, to fight a change like this. I mean christ himself coined the phrase...or the idea of turning the other cheek. And now, after 2000 years all his followers spend time arguing, and sometimes passionately about little insignificant things like this, while there are people starving, there are wars, and the environment is being trashed, possibly to the point of human extinction...or do christ followers only care if they get into heaven...which of course would be unchristian...which would seemingly keep them out of heaven....unless they got a quick "sorry" in before the end of days that is.

I mean, I stopped fully believing a while ago, but I still and always will remember what the teachings of christ were, and I have to say, quibs to athiests are very, very unchristian. Certainly, spending any time even discussing a change from BC to BP, which a true God, with no possible ego, could ever even care about, is as unchristian as it gets.

Is any of this logic wrong. Or was Christs teachings actually, that it was ok to fight and spend energy on negative things as long as it was in His name?

I may have hit the top on this one...and maybe just a bit beyond it?

Woodruff wrote:

2dimes wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

2dimes wrote:Before present.

Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?

Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.

They're not THAT short, given that "present" last only the tiniest fraction of a second. EVERYTHING is pretty much "before present". My statement about "before present" is already "before present" by the time I finish saying it!

There has to be some fixed point in history to use as a reference. Since we've all gotten by pretty well using BC and AD, it really seems silly to change it now. Using those terms don't in any way relate to a belief in Christ's godhood.

I think AD isn't used anymore, maybe someone thought "Anno Domini" was too Christiocentric (that word is probably a neologism), it's CE and BCE afaik.

2dimes wrote:Now it's important for some to find ways to try and bury him again.

That doesn't work as he'll just be back in three days.

xelabale wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

2dimes wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

2dimes wrote:Before present.

Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?

Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.

They're not THAT short, given that "present" last only the tiniest fraction of a second. EVERYTHING is pretty much "before present". My statement about "before present" is already "before present" by the time I finish saying it!

There has to be some fixed point in history to use as a reference. Since we've all gotten by pretty well using BC and AD, it really seems silly to change it now. Using those terms don't in any way relate to a belief in Christ's godhood.

Yeah it's impossible to change a measurement standard, it's never been successfully done before.

You missed the point. I'm not saying NOT to change it. I'm saying that:
1) Changing it to "before present" is inane in the extreme.
2) Change simply for the sake of change doesn't make a lot of sense. There should be a real reason for the change (not just some whiny atheists who want to be offended by it).

MeDeFe wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

2dimes wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

2dimes wrote:Before present.

Before present? That doesn't even SOUND sensible to me, as how do you reference anything in documentation or textbooks?

Agreed but things don't seem to be that thought out anymore. I suppose the lifespan of a text book is short enough for it to work though.

They're not THAT short, given that "present" last only the tiniest fraction of a second. EVERYTHING is pretty much "before present". My statement about "before present" is already "before present" by the time I finish saying it!

There has to be some fixed point in history to use as a reference. Since we've all gotten by pretty well using BC and AD, it really seems silly to change it now. Using those terms don't in any way relate to a belief in Christ's godhood.

I think AD isn't used anymore, maybe someone thought "Anno Domini" was too Christiocentric (that word is probably a neologism), it's CE and BCE afaik.

Now I'm admittedly a middle-aged fart, but I don't recall ever having heard of CE or BCE (though it's very possible I'll recognize it when I hear it)...what is the "CE" representative of?

Woodruff wrote:Now I'm admittedly a middle-aged fart, but I don't recall ever having heard of CE or BCE (though it's very possible I'll recognize it when I hear it)...what is the "CE" representative of?

Common Era and Before the Common Era. It's the new big thing.

Frigidus wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Now I'm admittedly a middle-aged fart, but I don't recall ever having heard of CE or BCE (though it's very possible I'll recognize it when I hear it)...what is the "CE" representative of?

Common Era and Before the Common Era. It's the new big thing.

Huh...I was wrong...I don't recognize it. I'll be darned.

jay_a2j wrote:Shouldn't the title of this thread be: "Non-Christians, your time is almost up."?

You maybe forget IPeter 4:17? Got your house all spic 'n span? Oil in your lamp?


Honibaz