European border changes over 5000 years

Posted on March 26, 2014 | 79 Comments

Once you have reached a certain age border changes no longer seem unusual. I have certainly seen a few in my time. There have been a few videos floating around showing the large number of border changes in Europe over the last few hundred years.

But this video goes back even further – 5000 years.

Have a look at how things changes in Europe from 5000 BCE to 2013 CE

This entry was posted in politics, SciBlogs and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

79 responses to “European border changes over 5000 years”

  1. AD | March 27, 2014 at 11:01 am |

    5000 BCE to 2013 CE

    that is
    5000 BC to 2013 AD

    to the rest of us?

    Like

  2. Richard Christie | March 27, 2014 at 3:25 pm |

    the rest of us?

    please elaborate

    Like

  3. AD | March 27, 2014 at 3:52 pm |

    Normal people say BC and AD.

    What is BCE and CE?

    Like

  4. Ken | March 27, 2014 at 3:55 pm |

    Who are these “normal” people. Before Common Era and Common Era are well accepted terms – and, I suggest, more politically correct.

    Like

  5. AD | March 27, 2014 at 3:58 pm |

    “More politically correct”.
    What does that mean?
    I have never heard the terms BCE and CE.
    What does “common era ” mean? Why is it “common”?

    Why don’t you like BC? Is it because the C means “Christ”?
    Why is “common era” better?

    AD means Anno Domini, the year of our Lord. Some people think it means “After Death”

    Dumb people

    Like

  6. AD | March 27, 2014 at 4:00 pm |

    One Million Years BC.

    BC, not BCE.

    Like

  7. Ken | March 27, 2014 at 4:18 pm |

    More politically correct because it doesn’t discriminate against non-Christians. You may never have heard the terms before – you have now. Keep your eyes open in future reading. These terms are commonly used, though normally they are considered interchangeable with the more discriminatory terms.

    Like

  8. Richard Christie | March 27, 2014 at 4:19 pm |

    Damn, foolish me.
    The troll is now dancing around the room, yabbering.
    I shouldn’t have given him a biscuit.

    Like

  9. AD | March 27, 2014 at 9:18 pm |

    Hello, so you are using a date based on the Gregorian calendar that is based in Judean Christian culture and you think it is more “politically correct” to refer to something else

    What is this magnificent event that occurred 2000 years ago that differentiates the “before” ce to the “after” ce?

    If you hate Christianity do much why don’t you invent your own number system (like BP before present) or perhaps your minds don’t extend that far?

    Maybe use the Chinese, Muslim, Hindhu or anything else?

    Like

  10. Ken | March 27, 2014 at 10:28 pm |

    AD – you seem very upset that another person might think differently to you about something or hold a different belief. Do you hat non-Christian beliefs?

    Like

  11. Richard Christie | March 27, 2014 at 10:47 pm |

    so you are using a date based on the Gregorian calendar that is based in Judean Christian culture and you think it is more “politically correct” to refer to something else

    Obviously, even with the CE system we get to keep the same numerical dates as before to signify start of the common era. If that gives christian believers warm fuzzy feelings or a sense of validation of their beliefs then I’m oh so pleased for them.

    But it doesn’t imply anything more special about the date chosen as year zero other than that it is more expedient to use an existing starting point than it is to rewrite millions of existing texts and records etc. It also allows for easier public adoption and acceptance of the more neutral CE system.

    So sorry if that disappoints.

    Like

  12. AD | March 28, 2014 at 9:27 pm |

    I hate to be pedantic but there is no year zero in the Gregorian calendar.
    The first year of Ad, or CE as the beige people call it, is one.
    The previous year was 1BC, or 1BCE in beige speak.

    Like

  13. Christopher Atkinson | March 29, 2014 at 5:11 am |

    “Maybe use the Chinese, Muslim, Hindhu or anything else?”

    Ad, you appear confused – what “number” system do you think we use?
    Is it Christian?

    You should study a little and find out a little of the the history mathematics – Do you know “who” invented “zero” and that but for this, you would be tapping away and blathering on this blog.

    The fact that you are unaware of the CE system really sucks any legitimacy away from your silly pedantic attempts at correcting someone else and just makes you look well…erm…

    Stupid

    Like

  14. Richard Christie | March 29, 2014 at 8:23 am |

    I hate to be pedantic..

    do you really?

    but there is no year zero in the Gregorian calendar.

    Thank you for the correction, the oversight was made in attempting to indicate existence of a zero position in a scale involving (-)ve BCE and (+)ve CE values.

    Like

  15. AD | March 29, 2014 at 10:54 am |

    Christopher Atkinson, yes I know about the number zero. Early mathematics did not have the number zero in their number system

    Later we saw the advent if negative numbers, and then irrational and complex numbers.

    The Gregrorian Judeo Chriatian calendar uses a number system from one upwards to indicate the period after Christ birth, or CE for the beige people who deny that he existed. (Whether you think Jesus is the son of a god is purely a religious view, of course. however, it is a little hard to deny that a man called Jesus Christ was actually born around this time, given the widespread literature of varying denominations)
    The Gregorian calendar is also known as the Chistian calendar and Western Calendar

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

    The beige people struggle with this, because the whole calendar is based in Christian dates. Even the word holiday is derived from Holy Day

    So my suggestion is to use a new calendar. Perhaps they could start at say 1980 when beigeness swept the world

    BB and AB

    Before Beige
    After beige

    And ban holidays too

    Like

  16. Quintin | March 29, 2014 at 11:22 am |

    Of course in his insistence to prove Ken and all of us wrong, AD missed the actual mistake that the timeline of this video correctly spans five millennia, but incorrectly spans from 5000 BC or BCE to 2013 AD or CE, as of course it spans instead from 3000 BC(E) to last year.
    I don’t see any merit in AD’s complaints against use of (B)CE. The best argument against it is perhaps that it’s entirely arbitrary. Then again, so is the use of 1 january 1950 as “the present” in geology and some other disciplines. When will we here AD complain about that?

    Like

  17. Christopher Atkinson | March 29, 2014 at 2:09 pm |

    I think the eponymous AD must be a closeted beige

    Like

  18. AD | March 30, 2014 at 4:09 am |

    Common Era (also Current Era[1] or Christian Era[2]), abbreviated as CE, is an alternative naming of the traditional calendar era, Anno Domini (“in the Year of Our Lord”, abbreviated AD).[3] [4] BCE is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era (an alternative to Before Christ, abbreviated BC). The CE/BCE designation uses the year-numbering system introduced by the 6th-century Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus, who started the Anno Domini designation, intending the beginning of the life of Jesus[5] to be the reference date.[6][7] Neither notation includes a year zero,[8] and the two notations (CE/BCE and AD/BC) are numerically equivalent; thus “2014 CE” corresponds to “AD 2014”, and “399 BCE” corresponds to “399 BC”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

    So really they are the same thing and the common era can also refer to the Christian Era, according to Wikipedia.

    Like

  19. AD | March 30, 2014 at 4:13 am |

    “As the Telegraph’s Christopher Booker noted: “The trouble with this politically-correct effort to spare offence to Muslims, Jews, atheists or other non-Christians from the use of a dating system tied to Jesus, is that it prompts any child to ask ‘So what is this Common Era based on?’, and brings up the very point it seeks to avoid.”
    ”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8737038/To-BC-or-BCE.html

    Exactly! and therefore I propose the beige based numbering system to avoid both offense and also offense that may arise from answering questions about “where did CE come from”

    Does this sound reasonable?

    Like

  20. AD | March 30, 2014 at 4:15 am |

    ” This is absurd political correctness and these new terms do not mean anything to anyone. I think it’s an example of the BBC trying to undermine Christianity by pushing an aggressive secularism. Rev Peter Mullen

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041265/BBC-turns-year-Our-Lord-2-000-years-Christianity-jettisoned-politically-correct-Common-Era.html#ixzz2xMwODRDZ

    Like

  21. AD | March 30, 2014 at 4:29 am |

    To answer Quentin’s question, CE is not entirely aribitrary because CE is the same as AD which is based on the assumed birth of Christ

    The birth of Christ is not an arbitrary date. You could base your calendar on some arbitrary guy like Tony Benn or Kerl Marx or Josef Satlin or Mao or Pol Pot or Adoft Hitler or Heirge Bush or Barack Obama

    No, you chose an arbitrary day ape that also happens to be the same date as wot the Christians use in their AD system, What are the chances of that?!

    I mean it’s like saying we chose an arbitrary date of. 25th Dec to celebrate an arbitrary holiday. Ha ha ha

    Get a life beige people
    Invent your own freaken culture!

    Like

  22. Christopher Atkinson | March 30, 2014 at 7:45 am |

    “The birth of Christ is not an arbitrary date”

    So…when is it?

    “While the birth year of Jesus is estimated among modern historians to have been between 7 and 2 BC, the exact month and day of his birth are unknown”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

    Like

  23. AD | March 30, 2014 at 10:59 am |

    That is a strawman Chtistopher.
    The beige people are adopting the Christian calendar as their own

    It’s a bit like calling a pair of Levies, Mevies, using the same cloth and branding and pretending it is something different

    The beigisits need to find their own path in the beigiverse. They do. It need to steal other people non beige concepts and rebrand them in beige.

    Like

  24. Ken | March 30, 2014 at 4:23 pm |

    AD – I think you are being extremely silly. The calendar system we use is part of our culture and is used throughout most of the world. There are a number of factors in this, wars, imperlialism, colonialsim, religious concquest, etc. Yes, practically all calendar systems are connected to mythology and religious mythology – but so what? These myhtologies are part of our cultural backgroud – and this is far wider than a Christian sect. Consider the names of the days and months we use.

    Our culture belongs to us all, whatever our current beliefs. In NZ very few people believe in the Greek or Roman gods and only a large minority beleive in a christian god. But we are all able mnto use these names and calendars without being silly about it.

    Sure, some people prefere to use terms like “first name” rather than “Christian name” or CE rather than AD – only fools worry about that. Your reference to the BBC, which uses both conventions without imposing, is typical of the silliness. WTF should anybody be upset about that?

    But worse, you seem to want to deny common usage to people who don’t adhere to your particular mythical belief. That is simply tyrany. NHo-one suggests your should not use the conventional day and month names just bacause you don’t adhere to those particular mythical beleifs, do they?

    Come on – stop being silly.

    Like

  25. Christopher Atkinson | March 30, 2014 at 4:24 pm |

    AD
    You seem not to know what a Strawman [argument] is. This may help you:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    I simply asked a question that you were unable to answer.
    Nevermind.

    I do like your clothing analogy though! Quite apt.
    Did you know that Levi’s were invented from cobbling other already existing ideas together? just a few rivets and work pants and… hey presto…jeans.

    Kind of like Christianity really.

    If you like beige so much, where better to look?

    Like

  26. AD | March 30, 2014 at 6:16 pm |

    “Only a large majority believes in a Christian god”

    Huh?

    Like

  27. AD | March 30, 2014 at 6:22 pm |

    What about the Taniwha that your guys keep on bringing up?

    Superstitious nonsense

    Like

  28. Ken | March 30, 2014 at 6:26 pm |

    Spelling mistake corrected, AD. As for superstitious nonsense . . . You are the one demanding we either accept your superstitions or leave our cultural heritage!!

    Like

  29. AD | March 30, 2014 at 6:39 pm |

    No, I am just pointing out your hypocrisy with a little irony.

    The Christians get marginalized but everyone else gets a free pass.

    Like

  30. Ken | March 30, 2014 at 6:50 pm |

    You are not making sense, AD. Fee pass for what? To enjoy our own culture?

    Like

  31. AD | March 30, 2014 at 7:01 pm |

    The left hate the Christians but everyone else is cool.

    For example, you don’t see much criticism of Islam, despite the appalling human rights issues.

    Like

  32. AD | March 30, 2014 at 7:03 pm |

    Anyway, keep your PC terms. No one cares.

    Like

  33. Ken | March 30, 2014 at 7:15 pm |

    What about Left Christians?

    I see plenty of criticism of Islam – I am very critical myself. But I think all religions have problems with human rights, just that Islam is a bit worse than others.

    Like

  34. AD | March 31, 2014 at 1:01 am |

    Yeah a bit worse, like stoning adulterers to death, killing gays and beheading people,

    Just a *little* bit worse.

    Like

  35. Quintin | March 31, 2014 at 8:34 am |

    I’ll just tell you what you want to hear AD, you’re an asshole. You need no reason to respond to criticism of your own beliefs, but when people don’t adhere to them, don’t acknowledge them or don’t treat them with respect, you just have to accept it. Perhaps we’re hypocrites for using the things “from Christianity” we like and rejecting those we dislike, but we don’t care. Our principle is that what’s good is good for its own sake, not because it comes from something good.

    Like

  36. AD | March 31, 2014 at 8:43 am |

    Hi Quintin,
    Thanks, I think your an asshole too

    Always good to share these positive messages amongst enquiring minds.

    Any other assholes like to join in the conversation?

    Like

  37. AD | March 31, 2014 at 8:45 am |

    Ken, what about a left Christians?

    Wtf is a left Christian?

    Like

  38. AD | March 31, 2014 at 8:53 am |

    Btw Quentin, I just retread your comment and realized that there was nothing of any substance in it apart from some vague stuff about “beliefs”

    However, you did get to call me an asshole, which is great.

    I love assholes,

    Like

  39. Ken | March 31, 2014 at 8:58 am |

    I agree AD – WTF is a “left” and WTF is a Chrsitian?

    But you used the terms.

    Like

  40. Ken | March 31, 2014 at 8:59 am |

    AD and Quintin, could you please refrain from the personal abuse. If not I will put you back into moderation and weed out such comments.

    Like

  41. Christopher Atkinson | March 31, 2014 at 9:17 am |

    Hi AD,

    Not responding to my comments? Or Ken’s for that matter?

    – I see you are a bit muddled in your responses and don’t like to respond to anything too difficult or anything that confronts your world view

    Are you able to contribute anything useful?

    c’est la vie

    Like

  42. AD | March 31, 2014 at 5:13 pm |

    Christopher,
    Which specific comments would you like me to address?

    Like

  43. Christopher Atkinson | March 31, 2014 at 6:53 pm |

    Hi AD,
    “Which specific comments would you like me to address?”
    The ones I asked of you.

    You will find them above, followed by question marks.

    I would be especially interested in your position that somehow Christianity “owns” the Calendar we use, when of course Christianity can hardly be considered a prime mover in the measurement in time or theology for that matter – itself borrowing and stealing ideas from a multitude of other sources

    If you are talking about the measurement of time, how about the Egyptian influence upon the 24hr clock…or the astronomical influences that shape our “year”?

    Like

  44. AD | March 31, 2014 at 7:03 pm |

    Christianity doesn’t own the calendar.
    It is just that all you have done is change the labels

    Like

  45. Christopher Atkinson | March 31, 2014 at 7:16 pm |

    But as is so easy to see, all labels change over time

    – why do you think we should stay fixated on a “Christian” idea?

    Like

  46. AD | March 31, 2014 at 8:02 pm |

    No, beige is good too

    Like

  47. AD | March 31, 2014 at 8:18 pm |

    The sky is green

    Like

  48. Christopher Atkinson | March 31, 2014 at 8:52 pm |

    a reawakening, a rude boy

    Like

  49. AD | April 1, 2014 at 12:49 am |

    Understanding is the key

    Like

  50. Christopher Atkinson | April 1, 2014 at 6:49 am |

    ““Which specific comments would you like me to address?”
    The ones I asked of you.

    You will find them above, followed by question marks.”

    It never seizes to amaze me that no matter how simple, how direct and how often I ask a question, when it confronts a persons belief system they are unable to process it.

    Always and without exception they resort to the same inane, predictable and vacant diversions and ultimately avoidence by running away.

    Surprise me AD

    Like

  51. AD | April 1, 2014 at 5:13 pm |

    Are you asking the question about the exact date of the birth of Christ?
    If so, I agree that the beginning of year one is the official date, but may be four years out. This of course is a strawman argument, because we don’t know the exact date.

    It doesn’t detract from the fact the that CE is just a label change.

    Like

  52. AD | April 1, 2014 at 5:24 pm |

    By the way, it never ceases, not seizes, to amaze one….

    Like

  53. AD | April 1, 2014 at 5:33 pm |

    Are you able to provide a suitably snotty response Christopher?

    Like

  54. Christopher Atkinson | April 1, 2014 at 7:24 pm |

    Thank you AD for pointing out my spelling mistake.

    First you said…
    “The birth of Christ is not an arbitrary date”
    (I think you mean birthday)

    Then you said…

    “If so, I agree that the beginning of year one is the official date, but may be four years out”

    So which is it?

    Do you have the balls to own one or will you try vainly to make these seemingly two incompatible statements somehow fit together?

    I don’t think you have taken my advice re: strawman, but if you are able to answer, I would love to elaborate…

    Like

  55. AD | April 1, 2014 at 9:20 pm |

    I think you know what I mean.

    Like

  56. AD | April 2, 2014 at 1:20 am |

    Do you have the balls to own one or will you try vainly to make these seemingly two incompatible statements somehow fit together?

    Quite obvious to me, maybe others have a little comprehension difficulty.
    The birth of Christ is not “an arbitrary date” in the sense it is not any old date.
    However, there is some error to that date so an approximate date is chosen to represent that non-arbitrary date.

    Like

  57. Christopher Atkinson | April 2, 2014 at 5:53 am |

    “I think you know what I mean”

    AD, I’m curious, you are very quick to point out others minor and insignificant errors.

    If you payed attention, as soon your sharply honed intellect pointed them out, Ken, Richard and myself all immediately apologized , owning the error – despite your irrelevant pettiness.

    You on the other hand have not.

    If you wish to be a pedant, at least have a little consistency and integrity.

    Or do you adhere to a different set of rules?

    Like

  58. Christopher Atkinson | April 2, 2014 at 9:16 am |

    AD,
    I see you have chosen the second door…”you try vainly to make these seemingly two incompatible statements somehow fit together” by saying
    “However, there is some error to that date so an approximate date is chosen to represent that non-arbitrary date”
    Some error?

    Nope, no error, no one knows.
    Again. No one knows.

    In fact, there is a stream of academic thought that disputes he even existed. Such is the paucity of evidence.

    Yet you think this is the “approximate” day that the son of your God was born. You would’ve thought he would have left a few more clues…
    …don’t you think it odd that Jesus Christ was born Before Christ?

    As you have chosen the second door and will argue yourself into a stupor – tying yourself in knots trying to tease semantic differences between “approximate” and “arbitrary” – you say potato I say potarto – I will ignore this.

    My point is this.

    The calendar that you would have us continue to use is based upon a date that cannot be determined. Don’t you see the irony here?

    This should be reason enough to discard it as a basis of any calendar system. But we’re stuck with history and our culture – we have little/no influence upon it.
    But most importantly, the calendar you are so attached to has little meaning to the majority of humanity. As Ken said; “More politically correct because it doesn’t discriminate against non-Christians”
    So, as a fine, gentle and tolerant Christian, why would you exclude the majority by insisting on this flawed calendar system and using derogatory words such as beige?

    Like

  59. AD | April 2, 2014 at 9:46 am |

    I never knew that there was a stream of academic thought that thinks that Christ never existed.
    How the heck did a whole bunch of people write several books about a made up guy?

    Did 100 people write about Harry Potter?

    By the way, what makes you think that I am fine, tolerant and Christian?
    I am none of those things

    If you find “beige” derogatory, then I am really sorry,

    Not.

    Like

  60. Christopher Atkinson | April 2, 2014 at 11:19 am |

    “You could base your calendar on some arbitrary guy like Tony Benn or Kerl Marx or Josef Satlin or Mao or Pol Pot or Adoft Hitler or Heirge Bush or Barack Obama”

    Did you notice no one corrected your appalling spelling?

    So…let me get this right…you are intolerant and a hypocrite.

    I am however a little surprised you aren’t Christian

    Like

  61. AD | April 2, 2014 at 6:15 pm |

    Yes, the iPad comes up with some silly corrections sometimes!

    I don’t really think I am intolerant.. Probably more like a pedant.

    Like

  62. Ken | April 2, 2014 at 6:29 pm |

    But, AD, you also deny that you are Christian – was that an iPad error too?

    Like

  63. AD | April 2, 2014 at 7:08 pm |

    I am not a Christian. I don’t deny it.
    Is this a problem?

    Like

  64. Ken | April 2, 2014 at 7:18 pm |

    No, not a problem for me. I have absolutely nothing against non-Christians. Just that your attempt to argue for a narrow naming of our calendar system gave the impression you place some sort of value in a Christ.

    But welcome to the “dark side.” 🙂

    Like

  65. AD | April 2, 2014 at 9:36 pm |

    Shalom Ken!

    Like

  66. Christopher Atkinson | April 2, 2014 at 10:27 pm |

    Hi Ad,

    “How the heck did a whole bunch of people write several books about a made up guy”

    Probably the same way a whole bunch of people have written books about homeopathy, telepathy, intelligent design, angels, god(s), UFO abductions and recent moa sightings.

    I think this logical fallacy is Argumentum Ad populum – just coz a lot of people think it’s so, doesn’t make it so

    Like

  67. AD | April 2, 2014 at 10:57 pm |

    So you think that the thousands of churches around the world are all based on a fictional character, despite several separate documents describing this made up person

    Maybe using the same logic you deny that all historical characters before the advent of TV and the internet existed?

    Do you deny the Holocaust happened?
    Do you think that the Earth is 6000 years old?

    Maybe “global warming” is also wrong because of “Argumentum Ad populum” as well?

    Clearly a problem for you

    Like

  68. AD | April 3, 2014 at 12:43 am |

    In North Lorea, the Juche Calendar was introduced in 1997 and is based on Kim Il Sung’s date of birth: 15 April 1912. This year is used as Juche 1 and the system works forward from there. There is no Juche 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_calendar

    China uses the Minguo calendar – the first year was 1912, the year of the founding of the Republic of China. For example, 2014 is the “103rd year of the Republic”. Months and days are numbered according to the Gregorian calendar.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minguo_calendar

    Like

  69. Christopher Atkinson | April 3, 2014 at 6:12 am |

    Hello Ad,

    So from lots of books to lots of Churches…
    and you are now beginning to move the goalposts…

    “So you think that the thousands of churches around the world are all based on a fictional character, despite several separate documents describing this made up person?”

    If you mean God, yes.
    If you mean Jesus, I don’t know, He may very well have lived. That wasn’t my point.

    So, lets turn this around, as you seem to be the one who believes (something?).
    Because there are many synagogues do you believe in the Yaweh?

    Like

  70. Christopher Atkinson | April 3, 2014 at 6:35 am |

    “Maybe using the same logic you deny that all historical characters before the advent of TV and the internet existed?

    Do you deny the Holocaust happened?
    Do you think that the Earth is 6000 years old?

    Maybe “global warming” is also wrong because of “Argumentum Ad populum” as well?

    Clearly a problem for you”

    No problem AD.

    I will explain as you seem unable to grasp this simple concept.

    Argumentum Ad populum explains why a person shouldn’t believe something simply (and only) upon the basis of popular belief – as you suggested.
    It doesn’t refer to the many other reasons a person could believe something – these could be entirely valid.

    I like to think that the things that I “believe” or accept to be true are based upon evidence.

    I understand the Universe to be approx. 13.7Billion years old due to scientific consensus and many other supporting facts that, if I had the time and ability I could verify. This is not an ideological “belief” as I am open to change, should the evidence show otherwise.

    Re: all the other examples you gave, I have views based upon the evidence. Because many other people may also have these views doesn’t invalidate them whatsoever.

    Like

  71. AD | April 3, 2014 at 7:08 am |

    I was referring to Jesus the man, not God. I already said this several comments ago.

    Like

  72. Christopher Atkinson | April 3, 2014 at 7:12 am |

    Yes I pretty much guessed, but whether it’s a man, god or magic underpants, my argument is still valid whatever the subject (label) in question

    Like

  73. Christopher Atkinson | April 3, 2014 at 7:16 am |

    Hold on…but isn’t Jesus supposed to be god anyway?

    Doctrine of the Trinity and all that – kinda fundamental to the Christian belief system

    Like

  74. AD | April 3, 2014 at 7:17 am |

    I was referring to the Gregorian calendar that is based on the supposed birth of a guy called Jesus Christ.

    The subject is calendars, not God.

    Like

  75. Christopher Atkinson | April 3, 2014 at 7:33 am |

    no no no – please read

    as I said the labels are irrelevant

    You diverted the subject, with silly arguments, and now you want to run away from it all?

    Can’t back up what you say?

    That’s fine by me if you can’t, but it’s not really conducive to having any worthwhile discussion

    Like

  76. Cedric Katesby | April 3, 2014 at 7:40 am |

    Because there are many synagogues do you believe in the Yaweh?

    Then there’s the Muslims. Many mosques too. After all it’s the fastest growing religion in the world, 1.6 billion followers or about 1/4 of the Earths populations etc.

    So…does AD believe in Allah?
    Hmm.

    Like

  77. AD | April 3, 2014 at 7:41 am |

    I am not running away.
    I am making the point that the Gregorian calendar is based around the supposed birth date of Jesus Christ.

    I have made this point se oval times
    I will continue to make this point.

    Over and over and over and over and over and over again.
    Over and over and over and over and over and over agin.

    Get it?

    Do you understand ?

    Over and over and over and over again

    Gregorian Judeo Christian calendar
    Based on the supposed birth date of Jesus Christ

    Who invented Before Common Era?
    Do you even know?

    Does anyone care?

    Which bland, tedious non entity thought up this piece of politically correct hogwash?

    No idea?
    What a surprise.

    Like

  78. Christopher Atkinson | April 3, 2014 at 7:55 am |

    I see

    So you can’t

    Goodbye AD

    Like

  79. AD | April 3, 2014 at 7:58 am |

    So you are running away now Christopher.

    How surprising

    Ironic that your name has “Christ” in it, too.

    Hmmm. shrugs

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.