Re: no more Xmas for the Christians?
- From: Thanatos <Thanatos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:53:55 GMT
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:03:58 -0000, SteveW <sj_walton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:37:43 -0000, Thanatos
><Thanatos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:57:29 +0000, "Lee@DVDDebate"
>> <lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't consider losing religious connotation to constitute the
>>> greying of society. As a person of no faith I find it highly offensive
>>> to have to proclaim that this is the 2005th year of my lord. I don't
>>> have a lord, thank you very much.
>>
>> So when you refer to 2005CE, what are you measuring 2005 years from?
>>
>>
>1 BCE
Which is significant because...?
You can't get away from it. Unless you start numbering your CE years
from some totally seperate starting point, you're calendar still
refers to the birth of Christ, no matter what you choose to call it.
--
"Recently is has come to my notice that my son has been threatened on this
newsgroup." - 'John'
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: no more Xmas for the Christians?
- From: SteveW
- Re: no more Xmas for the Christians?
- References:
- Re: no more Xmas for the Christians?
- From: SteveW
- Re: no more Xmas for the Christians?
- From: Lee@DVDDebate
- Re: no more Xmas for the Christians?
- From: Thanatos
- Re: no more Xmas for the Christians?
- From: SteveW
- Re: no more Xmas for the Christians?
- Prev by Date: Re: OTT on the last to move to Digital
- Next by Date: Re: no more Xmas for the Christians?
- Previous by thread: Re: no more Xmas for the Christians?
- Next by thread: Re: no more Xmas for the Christians?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
