The perpetual calendar

On 2010-04-02, Mark Brader wrote:

Adam Funk:
Just saw this in the news...

A group of students at Trinity University is lobbying trustees to
drop a reference to "Our Lord" on their diplomas,
....
Umm, the name of the university it a bit of a give-away too.

Well, not necessarily, although it is suggestive. St. Paul College
http://www.saintpaul.edu in Minnesota isn't a religious college --
it's located in the city of St. Paul.


Yabbut in this case it would be called St Anthony University. ;-)


(San Antonio, TX)


--
I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me
and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press
away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ]

Peter Moylan wrote:
[..."Jesus Christ"...]

A lot of people don't know that it's a title. (I bet there are some
people who even think that it was his surname.) Someone who is not
from a Judeo-Christian background would be even less likely to know.

Ah, that expression again! I've been pondering the term
"Jud(a)eo-Christian", or its more recent uses, lately. In this case,
what's "Judeo" about the "Christ" bit?

--
Mike.

wrote:

What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ
keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether
he was a christ or not? It seems to me they weaken the appearance of
their argument, or the argument itself, when they call him by a title
one would otherwise think they think he doesn't deserve.

Because most people think "Christ" is his surname - Mrs Mary Christ had
a baby and called it Jesus Harold Christ.
--

Rob Bannister

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:55:08 +0800, Robert Bannister
wrote:

wrote:

What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ
keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether
he was a christ or not? It seems to me they weaken the appearance of
their argument, or the argument itself, when they call him by a title
one would otherwise think they think he doesn't deserve.

Because most people think "Christ" is his surname - Mrs Mary Christ had
a baby and called it Jesus Harold Christ.

Jesus Haploid Christ...

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Apr 2, 9:36*pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:55:08 +0800, Robert Bannister

wrote:
wrote:

What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ
keep calling him Jesus Christ. *Isn't the core of the question whether
he was a christ or not? *It seems to me they weaken the appearance of
their argument, or the argument itself, when they call him by a title
one would otherwise think they think he doesn't deserve.

Because most people think "Christ" is his surname - Mrs Mary Christ had
a baby and called it Jesus Harold Christ.

Jesus Haploid Christ...

*chuckle out loud*

--
Jerry Friedman

Mike Lyle wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
[..."Jesus Christ"...]
A lot of people don't know that it's a title. (I bet there are some
people who even think that it was his surname.) Someone who is not
from a Judeo-Christian background would be even less likely to know.

Ah, that expression again! I've been pondering the term
"Jud(a)eo-Christian", or its more recent uses, lately. In this case,
what's "Judeo" about the "Christ" bit?

It depends on which brand of Christianity you're talking about.
Conservative Christianity, as represented by the Catholics, the
Anglicans, and a few others, focus on Pauline doctrines and take very
little from Jewish tradition. The more fundamentalist Christians, on the
other hand, ignore most of the New Testament and get most of their
orgasms from the nastier parts of the bible.

My reason for using "Judaeo-Christian" - thanks for supply the letter I
dropped - in this case was because I suspect that Jews are more
conscious of the meaning of "Christ" than most Christians are. The
Christians who do understand that it's a title are the ones who
understand why it was so important to trace the genealogy of Jesus,
through his father who against all tradition was probably his real
father, back to David. In other words, the ones who realised that he
didn't deserve the title until after he had kicked out the Romans.

(He didn't? Well, minor detail.)

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

On 2010-04-02, Mike Lyle wrote:

Peter Moylan wrote:
[..."Jesus Christ"...]

A lot of people don't know that it's a title. (I bet there are some
people who even think that it was his surname.) Someone who is not
from a Judeo-Christian background would be even less likely to know.

Ah, that expression again! I've been pondering the term
"Jud(a)eo-Christian", or its more recent uses, lately. In this case,
what's "Judeo" about the "Christ" bit?

As Archie Bunker said --- after he arrived to give a eulogy at a
colleague's funeral and was surprised to find it in a synagogue, and
Edith shouted "Here, don't forget your beanie!" as he was heading up
to the lectern [1] --- "Sorry, I didn't know he was Jewish, so there
were a couple of things about Jesus in here," waving his notes, "but
anyway Jesus was a Jew until God told him 'No more of that.'"


(This is from memory from about 20 years ago, so it's not an exact
quote.)


[1] If this is not the right term for it in a synagogue, I don't know
what it should be, & I'm sorry.



--
Oh, I do most of my quality thinking on the old sandbox. [Bucky Katt]

On Mar 9, 11:48*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
On Mar 9, 7:16*pm, Andrew Usher wrote:

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In sci.astro message
ooglegroups.com, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels
posted:

The people who put dates on cornerstones these days (since "CE" was
invented, that is) don't generally provide any era designation.

The dates on cornerstones are necessarily AD, if presumed to be on the
Julian or Gregorian Calendars, because BC had already ceased when those
were invented.

Peter clearly thinks we all need to write CE now and there's something
wrong with AD.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????

Why would you put "C.E." on a cornerstone?

It makes no sense to use "A.D." in any context that isn't explicitly
Christian, which is why "C.E." was invented in the middle of the last

also a reminder of the mistakes in calculation and historical
reconstruction made by the monk who designed the era.

century.

well, actually many muslim countries use the arabic term mi:la:di:
litt. "concerning the birthday" (except Libya, which under Qadhdhafi
invented its own solar era starting with the tradional birthyear of
Muhammad and called it "mi:la:di:"). usually al-mi:la:d refers to the
birthday of Jesus (recognized as a very important prophet) while other
synonyms are used for that of Muhammad. I had assumed that "Year of
Our Lord" would be objectionable to muslims, as they do not recognize
as divine. but a western convert from Christianity argued that the
Latin word used was not objectionable for reasons of detail that I
forgot.

On Apr 4, 6:38*pm, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
On Mar 9, 11:48*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:





On Mar 9, 7:16*pm, Andrew Usher wrote:

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In sci.astro message
ooglegroups.com, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels
posted:

The people who put dates on cornerstones these days (since "CE" was
invented, that is) don't generally provide any era designation.

The dates on cornerstones are necessarily AD, if presumed to be on the
Julian or Gregorian Calendars, because BC had already ceased when those
were invented.

Peter clearly thinks we all need to write CE now and there's something
wrong with AD.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????

Why would you put "C.E." on a cornerstone?

It makes no sense to use "A.D." in any context that isn't explicitly
Christian, which is why "C.E." was invented in the middle of the last

also a reminder of the mistakes in calculation and historical
reconstruction made by the monk who designed the era.

century.

well, actually many muslim countries use the arabic term mi:la:di:
litt. *"concerning the birthday" (except Libya, which under Qadhdhafi
invented its own solar era starting with the tradional birthyear of
Muhammad and called it "mi:la:di:"). usually al-mi:la:d refers to the

or in arabic in the feminine mi:la:diyya(t), qualifying sana(t)
"year" (fem.).

in Libya in the Christian era is now called 'ifranjiyy /
'ifranjiyya(t) lit. "Frankish", meaning "Western European" but rather
obsolete in formal discourse, except when discussing the Crusades etc.

birthday of Jesus (recognized as a very important prophet) while other
synonyms are used for that of Muhammad. I had assumed that "Year of
Our Lord" would be objectionable to muslims, as they do not recognize
as divine. but a western convert from Christianity argued that the
Latin word used was not objectionable for reasons of detail that I
forgot.

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:55:08 +0800, Robert Bannister
wrote:

wrote:

What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ
keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether
he was a christ or not? It seems to me they weaken the appearance of
their argument, or the argument itself, when they call him by a title
one would otherwise think they think he doesn't deserve.

Because most people think "Christ" is his surname - Mrs Mary Christ had
a baby and called it Jesus Harold Christ.

Okay, you guys have convinced me that is the reason, even among those
with Jewish or Christian backgrounds.

I guess the ex(?)-governor of Florida doesn't help.