Andrew Gray wrote:
On 05/09/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
Actually one of the major issues in the dispute is
whether BC/AD violates
NPOV because it requires Wikipedia to make an assertion the Jesus is the
Messiah/God. BCE/CE merely describes the condition, and thus does what the
NPOV policy asks.
That's a disingenuous presentation of the problem. Can you show a
single instance where your assertion that Jesus is Messiah/God is
required, and that is not a part of someone's argument against BC/AD?
The use of BC/AD merely requires that there may have been an historical
Jesus who was born at or near a time that is reasonably consistent with
the dating system. The idiotic assertion that Jesus was God is irrelevant.
Anno Domini. "In the year of the Lord..."
I'm aware of the etymology, and I don't think that Cicero and Ovid were
referring to Jesus when they used "dominus to refer to a husband or
lover or to an owner or proprietor. Could one argue that a person who
put himself under the control of a _dominatrix_ was receiving his
pleasure from God?
Or maybe we should stop using the Gregorian calendar because it was
promoted by Pope Gregory, and somehow that would mean that we are
expressing a POV in support of the Roman Catholic Church.
(I don't agree with Guettarda - I feel using BCE/CE
is as much making
an explicit point as using BC/AD is - but I do suspect the above is
kind of his point)
Good. I think writers should feel free to use whichever form they
prefer without being beset by the obsessives in either camp.
Ec