Slashdot Mirror


Calculating the Date of Easter

The God Plays Dice blog has an entertaining post on how the date of Easter is calculated. Wikipedia has all the messy details of course, but the blog makes a good introduction to the topic. "Easter is the date of the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after March 21... [T]he cycle of Easter dates repeat themselves every 5,700,000 years. The cycle of epacts (which encode the date of the full moon) in the Julian calendar repeat every nineteen years. There are two corrections made to the epact, each of which depend[s] only on the century; one repeats (modulo 30, which is what matters) every 120 centuries, the other every 375 centuries, so the [p]air of them repeat every 300,000 years. The days of the week are on a 400-year cycle, which doesn't matter because that's a factor of 300,000. So the Easter cycle has length the least common multiple of 19 and 300,000, which is 5,700,000 [years]."

336 comments

  1. Metric School Terms by 26199 · · Score: 4, Funny

    In the UK the academic year is split according to the date of Easter. I recall hearing about an effort to move to a "metric" system which doesn't depend on Easter. This suddenly makes a lot of sense...

    1. Re:Metric School Terms by Corsix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My school (south-west UK) seems to have detached term times from Easter. This is Easter weekend at the moment, so we get the Friday and Monday off as they are bank holidays, but the two week long "Easter break" isn't for another two weeks yet.

    2. Re:Metric School Terms by 26199 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah! The march of progress. Hasn't happened in the north-west yet, to my knowledge...

    3. Re:Metric School Terms by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      You guys get two weeks off? Lucky Brits.

    4. Re:Metric School Terms by 26199 · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the UK school is split into three terms ... in the middle of each, you get a week off, and between them, you get two weeks off. Except over the summer when it's six weeks.

      So there's more holiday through the year, but the summer vacation is shorter.

      (This is probably because we don't have as much summer.)

    5. Re:Metric School Terms by acroyear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      could be worse. In the early 600s, Easter as calculated by Patrick's Irish/Celtic church was on a different day some years than the Roman church. In one particularly odd incident, the King of Northumbria celebrated Easter on a different day from his wife.

      The Council of Whitby resolved this, supposedly.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    6. Re:Metric School Terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, those of us above school age also get a statutory 28 days paid holiday. Which seems a lot compared to the US 11 or 12(?) but if you think that's good I believe the Dutch get 35 days and every 2nd Friday. To take it to the extreme the French are forced to work at most on 35 hours and get four weeks but have to take them in August. Hurrah for the EU!

    7. Re:Metric School Terms by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, those of us above school age also get a statutory 28 days paid holiday. Which seems a lot compared to the US 11 or 12(?)
      I think 11 or 12 days is about what Americans in the professional class wind up getting on average, but *statutorily* we get somewhere between jack and shit.

      To take it to the extreme the French are forced to work at most on 35 hours and get four weeks but have to take them in August.
      So basically, if you want to invade France make sure to do it in August. That way, they won't notice until they come back from vacation :-).
    8. Re:Metric School Terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So basically, if you want to invade France make sure to do it in August. That way, they won't notice until they come back from vacation :-).


      Not that this will have any effect on the outcome of invading ...
    9. Re:Metric School Terms by psychodelicacy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Absolutely - the Anglo-Saxons had a lot to say about the dating of Easter. See http://faculty.virginia.edu/OldEnglish/aelfric/detemp.html for an original text on the subject if you're wildly interested. Melvyn Bragg's novel "Credo" dramatises the Synod of Whitby and gives a sense of exactly how serious an issue this was for people. Since Easter is the major Christian feast, it was a matter of orthodoxy to date it correctly. Interesting to think that being bad at math could make you a heretic!

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    10. Re:Metric School Terms by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      That's what happens when you've made up so many lies... Neither a false priest, nor a Nazi, nor a atheist who predicted the elimination of religion is a liar. They all had honest belief in what they said.

      Jackass.
    11. Re:Metric School Terms by CmdrSammo · · Score: 2, Funny

      (This is probably because we don't have any summer.)

      There, fixed that for you. To prove this point we have just had a white Easter up here in Leeds, gotta love British weather, always keeps you on your toes! (or on your arse if attempting to keep on your toes this morning!)

    12. Re:Metric School Terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I got a use French mi,military riffle for sale cheap. It was dropped once but has never been fired.

    13. Re:Metric School Terms by drew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting - I always assumed that "choosing" the date of Easter was a simple and fairly straightforward affair - it should always be the Sunday following the Jewish passover feast. How the date for that is determined, I am not really sure off the top of my head, but it doesn't seem like it should have been that hard to figure out for any Christian leader who was particularly interested, since the Christians included most of the Jewish scriptures and proscriptions in their own.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    14. Re:Metric School Terms by psychodelicacy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I can only really speak about the Anglo-Saxons on this, but you need to remember that books were scarce, and literacy was by no means universal. There's no guarantee someone would have had access to the whole Bible at any one time, or could read it even if they did. Add to this the fact that there was a great distrust of Jews - I doubt most Anglo-Saxon thinkers would have accepted that Christianity "included" Jewish scriptures and proscriptions; they would say that Christianity fulfilled the Hebrew scriptures and re-interpreted them in light of the teachings of Christ. Add to this an almost total ignorance of actual Jewish practice (i.e. anything outside the Hebrew scriptures themselves, which I think don't allow us to calculate Passover accurately on their own), and it's not surprising that a Christian king would have absolutely no idea how to date Passover or Easter.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    15. Re:Metric School Terms by dwye · · Score: 1

      could be worse. In the early 600s, Easter as calculated by Patrick's Irish/Celtic church was on a different day some years than the Roman church. In one particularly odd incident, the King of Northumbria celebrated Easter on a different day from his wife.

      There are two different methods to calculating Easter, and the Irish used the same algorithm as do Eastern Orthodox, today, while Romans (the future RCs) used a simpler calculation. Thus, if your wife is Eastern Orthodox, and you are Roman Catholic or Protestant, you have the same problem, today. This can be a problem in my home city, which imported a lot of Eastern Europeans back in the late 19th C., as well as for NY in a generation, as the children of Russian immigrants start marrying out.

      The Council of Whitby resolved this, supposedly.

      Only in that it made the Irish-started churches agree that they were under the Pope, and not a yet another brand of Christianity. Christians under one of the other Patriarchs of the time were still unaffected.

    16. Re:Metric School Terms by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      My University has classes on Friday and Monday as well. Spring break isn't for another week now.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    17. Re:Metric School Terms by mgblst · · Score: 1

      This would be more true of Sweden, where there is one month (I think it is August), where everybody goes on holiday. I went to stockholm, and it was like a deserted town, whole businesses shut down during this month.

    18. Re:Metric School Terms by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Which seems a lot compared to the US 11 or 12

      There is no specific mandated figure in the US. It varies. It varies quite a bit.

      Hourly employees, especially in unskilled positions, don't necessarily get paid time off. But they get paid at least 1.5 times their normal hourly rate if they go over 40 hours in any given week, and that _is_ mandated. And they get (unpaid) breaks every 4-5 hours (also mandated). And they often get more, depending on the employer and other factors (demand for labor, closed-shop unions, and so forth). For instance it is extremely common for an employer to also pay overtime (1.5 times the normal hourly rate) if you go over eight hours in a shift, though this is not mandated nationally. And some entire professions follow their own rules, e.g., medical workers do get paid time off even if they are hourly. I don't know if that's exactly mandated by law, but it may just about as well be, because nobody's ever heard of a hospital that doesn't provide the nurses with sick leave and paid vacation. The number of days or hours of it that you get typically increases over the years if you keep the same job.

      Salaried employees typically get at least a week of paid vacation, but I don't think that's mandated by law. And some people get a lot more. It is not unusual to run into somebody that gets four weeks, and six is not unheard-of, and of course that doesn't count sick time.

      Then there are teachers. They get almost all the time off that the students get, *plus* personal days, so that's somewhere in the neighborhood, if you add it all up, of almost four months, counting snow days and everything. Plus sick days. Plus, sometimes, professional development days for going to conferences and things. But they take most of it when the school district says they take it, so they can't for instance, just decide to take a week off in March. And sometimes there are rules about when they can take sick days and personal days, e.g., they may not be permitted to take off the Monday after a holiday just because "I don't feel well this morning".

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    19. Re:Metric School Terms by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 0, Troll

      So basically, if you want to invade France make sure to do it in August. That way, they won't notice until they come back from vacation :-).


      If history tells us anything, if you want to invade France just do it whenever you want.
    20. Re:Metric School Terms by michaela · · Score: 1

      But it's not the Sunday following Passover, as Passover this year isn't until Sunday 20 April (really it begins at Sunset on 19 April) and goes for 7 days, until Saturday 26 April. There is an extra month in the Jewish calendar this year to help account or seasonal changes and differences between solar and lunar months.

      This about.com article (http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/a/aa040200.htm) explains it better than I can.

      --
      That is all.
    21. Re:Metric School Terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cheese eating surrender monkeys!" Thank you Matt Groening.

    22. Re:Metric School Terms by youthoftoday · · Score: 1

      It might be worth pointing out that we use the word 'school' different to the way Americans use the word 'school'... as I understand it, american 'school' is pretty much any educational environment. For us it's anything up to (not including) University.

      --
      -1 not first post
    23. Re:Metric School Terms by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      This would be more true of Sweden, where there is one month (I think it is August), where everybody goes on holiday. I went to stockholm, and it was like a deserted town, whole businesses shut down during this month.
      That's odd. I thought Swedes in general took vacation in the Winter. I guess that might be just the richer people who take vacation in Thailand and Indonesia in the Winter. Any Swedes (or at least Northern Europeans) care to comment? I'd like to know a bit more since I'm planning to move there eventually.
    24. Re:Metric School Terms by eam · · Score: 1

      > And they get (unpaid) breaks every 4-5 hours (also mandated).

      Got any reference to cite for this? I've been unable to find any U.S. federal law that mandates breaks. State laws differ. In Pennsylvania, the only mandated breaks I've been able to find are for workers who are 14-17 years old, or seasonal field hands working more than 5 hours.

    25. Re:Metric School Terms by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Got any reference to cite for this?

      Not in writing. But every employer I've worked for, in both the private and public sector, blue collar and white, has indicated that they are legally required to have employees off the clock for a break at least once for every five hours in a shift.

      I suppose it's possible that it's state law (I'm in Ohio). But that would be kind of odd, because *most* of these sorts of requirements are federal, possibly with state a state law that says, in effect, "Oh, the same applies even if the employer doesn't do interstate commerce" (e.g., Ohio state minimum wage law is like that, last I checked).

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  2. how is it... by MousePotato · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is not a science article. Arguably it is a math article to the interested christians on /. but certainly not science.

    1. Re:how is it... by Otter · · Score: 4, Funny
      Calculating the Date of Easter Finds Possible Cure For Cancer

      There, now it's an official Science article.

    2. Re:how is it... by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Funny

      Arguably it is a math article to the interested christians on /.

      Methinks many families that profess no especial religion nonetheless buy their children bunny figures, chocolate, and disgusting gelatin chicks in the springtime. These sort of articles, besides showing Christians when their religious day falls, also explain when to expect such mechandise in your local stores.

    3. Re:how is it... by BountyX · · Score: 0, Redundant

      There's chrisitians on Slashdot? =P

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    4. Re:how is it... by ParaShoot · · Score: 2, Funny

      These sort of articles, besides showing Christians when their religious day falls, also explain when to expect such mechandise in your local stores. At the rate the appearance of the merchandise moves further and further back from the official date each year, I wouldn't be surprised if the said gelatin chicks turn up sometime this July. Buy now for Easter '09!
    5. Re:how is it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a Christian but I find this interesting because it reminds me of the kind of assignments we were given in computer science. Of course, the solution wasn't given like this, only a pattern from which we were to figure out an algorythm, and there was no Google back then.

    6. Re:how is it... by popmaker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yep, it goes along with the article on how to find out which weekday "seven days before yesterday" is without using your fingers.

    7. Re:how is it... by Usquebaugh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Actually it has far more interest for druids etc.

      Sort of like Christmas being near another pagan day.

    8. Re:how is it... by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      This is not a science article. Arguably it is a math article to the interested christians on /. but certainly not science. Which is why it isn't tagged with the "science" tag and the picture of Einstein is missing.
    9. Re:how is it... by Otter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your grasp of astronomical chronology far exceeds mine, then. I'm not a Christian and have no interest in the holiday per se, but thought this article was a fascinating piece of science history, and certainly learned more science from the underlying astronomy and the computation thereof than I would have gotten from any ten Roland Piquepaille rehashings of press releases he doesn't understand.

    10. Re:how is it... by Snorpus · · Score: 1

      Gelatin chicks? Chocolate bunnies? Don't kids get real chicks (dyed yellow, purple, etc.) and bunnies at Easter any more?

    11. Re:how is it... by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hey, it's not like religious people are all irrational! In fact, except for fanatics, it's like they have two brains - one to deal with day by day matters, and one for the church things. Which is a good thing, actually. But when you think about... well, it's quite a freakish notion.

    12. Re:how is it... by wickerprints · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not Christian and don't observe Easter, but I am a mathematician, and even I found the calculation interesting. In particular, I was interested to see the variety of algorithms used, as well as their relationship to astronomy.

      One should not forget that astronomy--and much of science in general--historically were motivated by religious belief, not just in Western Judaeo-Christian cultures, but all cultures. That this is no longer the case speaks to the power of rational thought over pre-rational mythologies; but it is also a disservice to apply a revisionist view towards the origins of science--which was born from our innate human desire to not merely accept the mechanisms of nature, but to understand it.

    13. Re:how is it... by siwelwerd · · Score: 1

      Math isn't science?

    14. Re:how is it... by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Arguably it is a math article to the interested christians on /.

      Methinks many families that profess no especial religion nonetheless buy their children bunny figures, chocolate, and disgusting gelatin chicks in the springtime. These sort of articles, besides showing Christians when their religious day falls, also explain when to expect such mechandise in your local stores.

      Don't forget about Mardi Gras!

      Mardi Gras (Fat Tuesday, Shrove Tuesday, Pancake Day, etc.) is the day before Ash Wednesday, which is the first day of Lent, which begins 40 days (excluding Sundays) before Easter. So, once you've calculated the date of Easter, subtract 47 to get the date of Mardi Gras.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    15. Re:how is it... by BountyX · · Score: 1

      Two brains....sounds like a personality disorder to me. No just kidding, I'm a Pastafarian myself.

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    16. Re:how is it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing says science like discussing the accuracy of the date that a fictitious event did not occur on.

    17. Re:how is it... by xZoomerZx · · Score: 1

      Gelatin chicks? Chocolate bunnies? Don't kids get real chicks (dyed yellow, purple, etc.) and bunnies at Easter any more?
      Mine used to, but they said that the gelatin and chocolate are much tastier.
      --
      Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    18. Re:how is it... by psychodelicacy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even worse... there are Christian women on /.

      Seriously, do you assume that all Christians are no-brain idiots who think dinosaur skeletons are an atheist conspiracy? Donald Knuth is a Lutheran, Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian monk, Copernicus was a priest, as was Georges Lemaitre. Lord Kelvin and Max Planck were committed Christians, Arthur Stanley Eddington was a Quaker... There are more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science (Not all of those in this list were Christians throughout their lives, but the ones I've named were/are.)

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    19. Re:how is it... by CrimsonScythe · · Score: 1

      I'm not Christian and don't observe Easter[...]

      How can you not observe Easter when all those god damned multicolored bunnies, chicks, eggs and other crap yell EASTER!!11!1! from every fucking angle?!?



      Oh, that kind of "observe"... Never mind O:-)

      --
      The view was horrible and the smell was even worse; Julie severely regretted becoming a proctologist.
    20. Re:how is it... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >This is not a science article.

      It's anthropology, and like it or not, anthropology is science.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    21. Re:how is it... by teabag_46 · · Score: 1

      I would consider maths to be the basis of science! In this case, the maths involve astronomy - so it IS science!

    22. Re:how is it... by settantta · · Score: 0

      Actually it has far more interest for druids etc. ...not to mention Wiccans and all the other shades of Pagans.

      Sort of like Christmas being near another pagan day. Actually, they're both Pagan Festivals. What we now celebrate as Easter was originally the full moon following the Spring Equinox in the Northern Hemisphere. The Church of Rome "Christianized" it by the addition of "The Sunday following the...". Christmas, OTOH remains unchanged as far as dates go. Roughly 3 days after the midwinter solstice, it would be the earliest point at which the sun could be seen to be moving North again. Then of course, there is Halloween (Samhain to the Pagans)....
    23. Re:how is it... by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Well then persuade the editors to create a holiday or Easter or some other category that better fits this particular post and any other post that doesn't fall squarely into a particular category. Given a finite # of categories and that number being very very small, it is hard to categorize every conceivable submission appropriately. And it has happened before on this site so I can't figure out why you got modded for stating an obvious, known problem.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    24. Re:how is it... by xeniast · · Score: 0

      How about Isaac Newton ?

    25. Re:how is it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, do you assume that all Christians are no-brain idiots who think dinosaur skeletons are an atheist conspiracy? Donald Knuth is a Lutheran, Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian monk, Copernicus was a priest, as was Georges Lemaitre. Lord Kelvin and Max Planck were committed Christians, Arthur Stanley Eddington was a Quaker...

      Yes, everyone has faults but do you have to point them all out?

    26. Re:how is it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, do you assume that all Christians are no-brain idiots who think dinosaur skeletons are an atheist conspiracy?

      No Christian would think that. Dinosaur skeletons were placed there by Satan and for all his bad points, Satan ain't no atheist.
    27. Re:how is it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please.. no need to dis the indestructible peep! think of the children!!

    28. Re:how is it... by bkaul01 · · Score: 1

      There was a celebration of the Resurrection long before the Church of Rome gained primacy in the West. Likewise with the celebration of the Advent. The English name of Easter comes from accommodation, in telling the pagans to celebrate the Resurrection at the time of their Easter holiday, perhaps, and the timing matters little to those who are primarily concerned with the content, anyway. But either way, it's not as if what is being celebrated by Christians is not Christian in origin; the Church simply made it easy for former pagans to adapt their culture to its beliefs. That's hardly an argument against a religion that is based on the premise that its beliefs are Truth, nor is it an argument against the celebration of its holidays. What does it really matter how much accommodation they made for other cultures to make it easier for pagans to convert?

    29. Re:how is it... by kongit · · Score: 1

      do hookers count? of course it wasn't my kids as I don't have any but whatever.

    30. Re:how is it... by carpe.cervisiam · · Score: 1

      I was raised Catholic, so I understand the desire to say that we just adjusted our feast days to better assimilate the pagan religions, but it's just not so. If I told you that there is a faith that believed in a deity born of a virgin, who later died to redeem us and his birth was celebrated on the winter solstice, would you know that I was speaking of Mithra? The same Mithra who had temples consecrated to him in 200 BCE in Iran?

      I'm not saying that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't an actual person nor am I saying that his teachings have no value. I am saying that it is naive to think that all modern religions are not heavily influenced by prior religions that are now out of favor.

      --
      It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.
    31. Re:how is it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, do you assume that all Christians are no-brain idiots who think dinosaur skeletons are an atheist conspiracy?
       
      Yes, I do.

    32. Re:how is it... by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      [...] also explain when to expect such mechandise in your local stores. That's easy, the whole time from late January to late April, regardless of when Easter is.
      The same way you start getting Christmas stuff in store as soon as Halloween is over, and it doesn't all disappear until January.
    33. Re:how is it... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > These sort of articles ... also explain when to expect such mechandise in your local stores.

      I believe the general rule for that is "as soon as the bulk of the leftover marked-down Valentine's Day stuff is sold off", though some stores my codify this, e.g., the second Tuesday after the first Saturday after February 14. (That allows at least one full week after the advertisements with the marked-down prices for the Valentine's stuff go out in the weekly newspaper supplement, and guarantees that the shelf-stocking can be done on a Tuesday, the slowest business day for most retailers.) HTH.HAND.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    34. Re:how is it... by SharpFang · · Score: 0, Troll

      Copernicus was a priest but he wrote his works in secret from the church and had them only released post-mortem.
      Not all christians are no-brain idiots, but the Church as an institution definitely is.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    35. Re:how is it... by psychodelicacy · · Score: 1

      Not quite. He'd already agreed to have his work published before he died. They certainly weren't secret from the Church, since his ideas were known both to the Pope and to the Cardinal of Capua, who urged him to make them more widely available to scholars.

      I'm not disputing that the Church has done incredibly dumbass things throughout its history. In the 1600s, they "corrected" Copernicus' text because of the heliocentrism row. But that's not the point here. The point is that Copernicus himself was a Catholic all his life, and that he doesn't seem to have been hugely secretive about his work (any more than a modern scientist is with preliminary findings) or to have tried to keep it from the Church.

      I'm not an apologist for the Church, but I'm sick of seeing religious people attacked for their faith.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  3. Huh. by CSMatt · · Score: 1

    I always thought it was based on when the Hebrew calendar said the week of Passover was.

    1. Re:Huh. by sonicdevo · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Easter is termed a moveable feast because it is not fixed in relation to the civil calendar. Easter falls at some point between late March and late April each year (early April to early May in Eastern Christianity), following the cycle of the moon. After several centuries of disagreement, all churches accepted the computation of the Alexandrian Church (now the Coptic Church) that Easter is the first Sunday after the first fourteenth day of the moon (the Paschal Full Moon) that is on or after the ecclesiastical vernal equinox. Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover not only for much of its symbolism but also for its position in the calendar. The Last Supper shared by Jesus and his disciples before his crucifixion is generally thought of as a Passover meal, based on the chronology in the Synoptic Gospels..."

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

    2. Re:Huh. by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Of course, you are correct. The (Greek) Orthodox get this - the Last Supper was a Passover feast - case closed.

      Meanwhile, I prefer the Flying Spagetti Monster

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Huh. by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 1

      Not this year, they're pretty far off - a month or so? Perhaps a result of this year's Hebrew calender having an extra month to prevent drift? So, essentially, yeah, but it seems like the early Church felt the need to create their own calculation so it didn't look like they were just copying the Jews. Awkward . . .

    4. Re:Huh. by GrayNimic · · Score: 1

      Except that in modern day, it's linked to /Christian/ Passover rather than Jewish Passover, date-wise. They are computed rather differently. (like this year, where Easter falls on Mar23 but Passover is Apr19-Apr26)

    5. Re:Huh. by dwye · · Score: 1

      > but it seems like the early Church felt the need to create their
      > own calculation so it didn't look like they were just copying the Jews.

      No, just to simplfy the calculation for non-ex-Jews.

    6. Re:Huh. by jonadab · · Score: 2, Informative

      > I always thought it was based on when the Hebrew calendar said the week of Passover was.

      It was, originally, and _sort of_ still is.

      But over the centuries, as the Jews and Christians codified the rules for their calendars differently, some differences have arisen.

      At the time when the Western formula for Easter was set, the Jews tried pretty hard to keep the spring equinox in the first half of the first month (Nisan), so the Easter formula that was established assumes that to be the case -- but the modern Jewish calendar doesn't do that. Arguably, this is a deviation on the Jewish side that takes their calendar out of sync with where it should be.

      Additionally, the Western formula for Easter assumes that the Gregorian calendar is always perfectly in sync with the astronomical solar year, and that isn't always necessarily true. (Over long numbers of years it tracks very closely, but in any given year it can be off by a little.) Arguably this is a deviation on the Christian side that takes our calendar out of sync with where it should be -- but in a different way from what the Jewish deviation does.

      If we got rid of both deviations and reckoned both calendars in a way that kept them strictly in alignment with the astronomical solar year, then Easter Sunday would always be, if I understand correctly, the Sunday after the Passover Seder.

      But the important thing, to my way of thinking, is not the exact date on which the events are celebrated, but the fact that they *are* celebrated. Though the date calculations are interesting. (Then again, I majored in math, so I may define "interesting" differently from some people.)

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  4. Spring equinox by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've always thought that it is more fun to say the date of Easter is "the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox," rather than March 21st.

    It sounds so much more Pagan my way.

    1. Re:Spring equinox by AndrewRUK · · Score: 4, Informative

      Only problem is, your way isn't always right, because the date of Easter is always calculated from March 21st even if (as this year) the northern hemisphere spring equinox doesn't fall on that date.

    2. Re:Spring equinox by not-my-real-name · · Score: 1

      Well, it does have Pagan origins. I mean, what do rabbits and eggs have to do with the death and resurrection of Christ? It's just a fertility holiday in disguise. If you really wanted to be picky, Easter weekend should coincide with Passover weekend.

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
    3. Re:Spring equinox by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      I'll see your 'Spring', and raise you a 'Vernal'!

    4. Re:Spring equinox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the GP would rather calculate the Sunday after Passover instead of Easter. Passover is always calculated from the equinox. Those Jews and their lunar calendar...

      If you want to take it a step further, though, there's always Jehovah's Witnesses. We calculate the date and time for the observance of the Memorial of Christ's death.

      The date is the first full moon over Jerusalem after the spring equinox. (Note: we celebrate on the day of the full moon, not on the following Sunday like other Christian faiths.)

      The time is "about at sundown", usually starting just before sundown and ending just after. The reason? The emblems (wine and flat-bread) cannot be passed until after sundown because the Jews considered sundown to be the start of the day. It's Nisan 13 until sundown, then we can pass the emblems on the 14th, just after sundown.

      Unfortunately, if anyone wanted to attend, they'd have to wait until next year, since this year the Memorial was on March 22 (that's yesterday).

    5. Re:Spring equinox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when are fertility symbols exclusively owned or originated by pagans?

    6. Re:Spring equinox by John_Sauter · · Score: 1

      I've always thought that it is more fun to say the date of Easter is "the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox," rather than March 21st.

      It sounds so much more Pagan my way.

      The World Council of Churches, an organization not known for its paganism, agreed with you. See http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/towards-a-common-date-for-easter/towards-a-common-date-for-easter.html#c10573 for details. I understand that one of the motivations for that proposal was that one of the Eastern Orthodox religious leaders discovered that their current method of calculating Easter would eventually make it fall on the same day as Christmas. He found that abhorrent for some reason, and so backed this proposal.

      However, "the first Sunday after the first full Moon after the Spring (Vernal) equinox" is ambiguous. The Moon is full when you are directly between the Sun and the Moon, but when that happens depends on where you are on Earth. When the religious leaders asked themselves where on planet Earth should be the location for determining the date of Easter, the obvious choice was Jerusalem.

  5. Re:Why would by sonicdevo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because the date (and what it commemorates) is meaningless to you, is it really necessary to cast all those who do care about it as irrational?

  6. Re:Why would by Wuhao · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Historical significance, for one. The history of time-keeping and astronomy are intimately tied to the need to celebrate religious events; this goes back much before Christianity. It's really a very neat subject, and it's really fascinating how much math developed simply out of a need to know when and how to throw a party for the gods.

  7. And yet... by ironicsky · · Score: 1

    And yet, it doesn't matter the slightest... over 5,000,000 possibilities to when easter will happen, and they all occur within 6 weeks of each other(Last 2 weeks of March, and all of April), all on Sundays... So I look at it as a 1 in 6 chance of knowing when easter will be each year.

    1. Re:And yet... by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      Totally missed the point ... they're talking about the pattern of the dates easter falls on from year to year. Not the specific date in any given year.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  8. 666 !!! by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Come on, there must be some way to show that the date of Easter involves the number 666. With all the brutal evil things that have been done in the christian church's name, there has to be!

    There's so many lies involving easter, so many people misled that a dead person came back to life when really someone who was almost dead just made a surprising recovery, there's got to be some evil references in this!

    I'm so disappointed in this article.

    I bet next people will believe that this guy's mother was somehow a virgin, and not just spouting the same lies that every young, newly sexually active woman says when confronted by her parents.

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    1. Re:666 !!! by ParaShoot · · Score: 1

      Except that the number of the beast is 616, not 666.

    2. Re:666 !!! by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      Maybe your beast, but freedom of religion protects my delusions as much as yours. My beast which is absolutely just as real and valid as your beast has the number of 666.

      He had the number of 69 ... but found that he'd rather just spoon with two of his friends.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    3. Re:666 !!! by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I bet next people will believe that this guy's mother was somehow a virgin, and not just spouting the same lies that every young, newly sexually active woman says when confronted by her parents.

      I seriously doubt that Mary went around saying that she became pregnant despite being a virgin, for two reasons. First, everyone would have read between the lines and assumed Jesus was the product of infidelity, then as now. Saying that Yahweh was the real father makes you look like you're not just loose, you're also batshit insane. The cover story would have been that Joseph was the father.

      What's far more likely is that the virgin birth is a later addition to the story of Jesus. In comic book terminology, this is a retroactive alteration of the continuity, or "retcon". "Hm... how do we explain the origin of Jesus' amazing superpowers? How is he able to walk on water, cure leprosy, and feed multitudes using a single loaf of bread, if he's just some average Jew? It's just not plausible, our audience will never buy it. I KNOW! We have a special "Origins of Jesus" issue in the Bible, where we reveal that ACTUALLY, Jesus is the son of God! Now, the fact that he has these amazing superpowers makes sense!"

      It's exactly like how Marvel went back and created a backstory to explain the origins of the super-powers of the X-men. In the case of Marvel, alien visitors altered the DNA of ancient humans which resulted in mutants like Wolverine. In the case of the Catholic Church, a super-powerful being impregnates Jesus' mom. It's a really ancient theme. If you recall many of Greek heroes, such as Hercules, had gods for parents, which explained why they were so powerful. Achilles was more like the Incredible Hulk, in that exposure to magic (the waters of the River Styx in the case of Achilles, gamma rays in the case of the Hulk) give them their powers. But Odysseus is like Batman- he doesn't have any superpowers, he's just clever.

    4. Re:666 !!! by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 0, Troll

      Interesting theory, and good analogy to the comic book industry. Both want you to return each week and buy their product, each wants you to become part of a group of people who follow their story, each fights to fill in the gaps to make their stories more complete.

      But I wouldn't totally throw off the idea of Mary and family lying to cover her indescretions. Maybe when questioned, her father helped spread the word, being too softhearted to simply kill his daughter by stoning, the way he would have had to if this were a Muslim story.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    5. Re:666 !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so that makes Bethany part black?

    6. Re:666 !!! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Informative

      the way he would have had to if this were a Muslim story

      Or, you know, a Jewish or Christian one. The penalty of death by stoning for adultery is straight out of the Old Testament.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    7. Re:666 !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus tapdancing christ there Brodie.

      Apt as all hell.

    8. Re:666 !!! by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Or it's all a mistranslation and she just wasn't married.

    9. Re:666 !!! by teabag_46 · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, Jesus was just an early terrorist, with a good PR company! Okay, you believers, if he was around now, and railed against the establishment in the way the bible says (especially in the UK or US) he would be locked away immediately! If he had carried out his 'miracles' in the middle ages in the UK, he would have been burned at the stake as a witch! If the same 'miracles' were to be performed today, he would either be making a fortune as a stage magician, or be busy being dissected by scientists. Never mind that his mother got pregnant out of wedlock, in an age when women could be, and were, stoned to death for this 'crime'; she just got lucky and managed to fool most of the people, most of the time! Perhaps Pontius Pilate was one of the few people to see things clearly, in much he same way the UK and US governments do now - kill Osama Bin Laden, and the party has no host! They just need to remember what Pontius forgot - clear all the records so there is no evidence; in the same way that the Whitehouse have done with their E-mails. Sorry to all you believers, please don't be offended - I'm a believer too, I just believe differently to you!

    10. Re:666 !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I bet next people will believe that this guy's mother was somehow a virgin...

      Are you confusing the concept of the "immaculate conception" with "virgin birth?"

      Other replies claiming the "virgin" was a mistranslation of "young woman" not withstanding, a "virgin birth" is simply the first baby that a woman has.

    11. Re:666 !!! by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      If you recall many of Greek heroes, such as Hercules, had gods for parents, which explained why they were so powerful. Achilles was more like the Incredible Hulk, in that exposure to magic (the waters of the River Styx in the case of Achilles, gamma rays in the case of the Hulk) give them their powers. But Odysseus is like Batman- he doesn't have any superpowers, he's just clever.

      Minor nitpick: Achilles was also half-divine, according to the Iliad. His mother was Thetis. Odysseus also had divine ancestors, but they were more distant.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    12. Re:666 !!! by KKlaus · · Score: 1

      Her family would have been the one's to promote the story, not her. Seem more plausible now?

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
    13. Re:666 !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's far more likely is that the virgin birth is a later addition to the story of Jesus.

      What's far more likely than even that is what is in the Bible, given the fact you are just some schmoe giving your opinion. Do you care to rewrite other portions of the Bible too based solely on your opinion structured around comic book terminology? Maybe more people will want to read it if it reads like a comic book. Then again, it is also just a history book to some people which isn't enough to read it even for those who are history buffs.

    14. Re:666 !!! by SoulGrind · · Score: 1

      While I admire you're attempt to rationalize your position based on the structure of a backstory, I believe you have missed some key points in your doctrinal viewpoint.

      You were close to hitting the target when you suggested the potential theme of infidelity. But the story goes deeper than that. First and foremost, Joseph was not yet married to Mary when she was with child. They were only betrothed (engaged/arranged to be married) at the time, and under Jewish law, this was as good as being married, sans the nuptials and the writ of marriage. Since a child out of wedlock would have been seen as a disgrace (especially to Joseph), under Jewish law, Joseph had every right to have Mary exposed for infidelity (obviously since Joseph was not the child's father). However, Joseph, being the Godly man that he was had actually planned on giving Mary a writ of divorce (Joseph's other alternative under Jewish law) and to quietly let her drift off into anonymity with her bastard child. Fortunately, Joseph had a visit from an angel of God in a dream and therefore Joseph had a change of heart.

      Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.. - Matthew 1:18-25, ESV

      Now, onto your cross-comparison of the virgin birth in comparison to other religions, such as Greek mythology, etc. First, let's examine what the Bible claims has happened.

      In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God." And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her. - Luke 1:26-38, ESV

      You are correct in noticing that it's an ancient "theme", but the Christian theme has a slight twist that no other religion (that I am aware of) describes. As we can see from the scriptural reference, the method for the conception of Christ is completely different than other religions/mythology. Other religions/mythology state that some god-like being (i.e. Zeus, father of Hercul

    15. Re:666 !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think you forgot to add

      umask 50
      to /etc/init.d/beast
    16. Re:666 !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem with that is that the virgin birth was predicted a LONG Long long time before it even happened. As was all the "super" powers, death and resurrection. So it's a little hard to believe they retroactively modified something that has been proven to have existed far before the events in question.

      Yes, I am a Christian, no, I don't believe the Bible is word for word what God said, it's a very human book, but I don't doubt in the least that God was heavily involved in its writting.

    17. Re:666 !!! by ShinmaWa · · Score: 1

      What's far more likely is that the virgin birth is a later addition to the story of Jesus. In comic book terminology, this is a retroactive alteration of the continuity, or "retcon". "Hm... how do we explain the origin of Jesus' [...] I KNOW! We have a special "Origins of Jesus" issue in the Bible, where we reveal that ACTUALLY, Jesus is the son of God! Actually, you are exactly right. The people who were discussing this was First Council of Nicaea in the fourth century and the "Origins of Jesus" issue is called the Nicene Creed. (To be fair, this part of the Nicene Creed was heavily influenced by the Apostles' Creed from the second century.)

      --
      The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
    18. Re:666 !!! by Selivanow · · Score: 1

      You're both wrong! The mark of the beast is 999! Satan (Or is that Santa) is upside down! But wait, what if I'm in Peru? Then am I upside down and Satan is right-side up? Damnit! Christianity is too confusing. I'm going to bed.

      --
      -- ...trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -Bruce Schneier
    19. Re:666 !!! by Selivanow · · Score: 1

      oh where are my mod points?!

      --
      -- ...trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -Bruce Schneier
    20. Re:666 !!! by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 1

      Take the reminder of 5700000 after division by 66 to get 42. That's the answer to everything. But that is not all. The remainder of 66 divided by 42 is 24, the opposite answer to everything. Then 42 modulo 24 is 18. Finally, 24 modulo 18 is 6. This means that the greatest common divisor of 5700000 and 66 is 6. We can simply concatenate the last two numbers to get 666, the number of the beast. There are many more connections to the number of the beast that does not fit in this post.

    21. Re:666 !!! by gunnarstahl · · Score: 1

      Hi,
      nice theory. But how comes that jesaja, the prophet who lived a couple of hundred years before jesus, prophesized this virgin birth? Was that too a "marvellous" addition?

      Btw, who are "they" that altered the original story? I would like to know these people in charge of the content of the bible.

      Yt,

      Gunnar

    22. Re:666 !!! by Cathbard · · Score: 1

      they = the council of Nicae. Creating a text about something that happened hundreds of years earlier so that it fits an even older prophesy isn't exactly a difficult thing to do. Nothing marvelous about it.

      --
      "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
    23. Re:666 !!! by Albert+Sandberg · · Score: 1

      almost, according to some friends with insight it stated that she was young, rather than a virgin, and the later translation made that "small" error :-)

    24. Re:666 !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I've heard that 'virgin' was a mistranslation from 'unmarried mother' by some greek while translating the bible. As the greeks involved wanted a more mysterious religion, it was decided to keep it that way.

    25. Re:666 !!! by GCH · · Score: 0

      So, essentially we are to believe that a group of disciples composed this elaborate story of Jesus for what purpose? Marvel comics, as well as other entities who create back story do so for the purposes of gaining profit. If we look at the history of early Christians, none of them received wealth for their beliefs and most were brutally persecuted. Not a good business model, if you ask me.

      I don't know about anybody else, but if I knew I was going to be nailed to a cross or subjected to some other torturous death, for a story I knew I had made up, I would be all about saying "We made it all up! It was just a joke!" Nobody is going to die for a made up story.

    26. Re:666 !!! by ja · · Score: 1

      The penalty of death by stoning for adultery is straight out of the Old Testament.

      It's in the new one as well. Pretty famous part actually ...

      --

      send + more == money? ...
    27. Re:666 !!! by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Believe me, I don't hold Christianity or any other religion above any other, I understand that they are all just different flavours of evil.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    28. Re:666 !!! by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      Are you confusing 'immaculate conception' with being even the slightest bit more realistic than virgin birth?

      Your mistranslations are pointless, it's the common perception perpetrated by the church.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    29. Re:666 !!! by ShinmaWa · · Score: 1

      I don't know about anybody else, but if I knew I was going to be nailed to a cross or subjected to some other torturous death, for a story I knew I had made up, I would be all about saying "We made it all up! It was just a joke!" Nobody is going to die for a made up story. You are making the very false assumption that it was Jesus making up a story. Actually, the story - as it were - was settled upon in the 4th century by the First Council of Nicaea -- some 300 years after Jesus was executed.

      If we look at the history of early Christians, none of them received wealth for their beliefs and most were brutally persecuted. Not a good business model, if you ask me. Trust me when I say the members of the First Council of Nicaea headed by Emperor Constantine I of Rome (who was hardly a pauper and certainly not persecuted) very much had both profit and power in mind when it was formed -- and it worked too. It was direct result of this Council and the subsequent Councils that led the Christian Church into becoming the most powerful and wealthy entity in the history of the world just a few centuries later.

      I think you need to learn a bit more of history, GCH.
      --
      The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
    30. Re:666 !!! by GCH · · Score: 0

      I don't know about anybody else, but if I knew I was going to be nailed to a cross or subjected to some other torturous death, for a story I knew I had made up, I would be all about saying "We made it all up! It was just a joke!" Nobody is going to die for a made up story. You are making the very false assumption that it was Jesus making up a story. Actually, the story - as it were - was settled upon in the 4th century by the First Council of Nicaea -- some 300 years after Jesus was executed. Actually, I did not make the assumption that Jesus made the story up, I was addressing the implication that a group of guys got together and made up a "myth" about a man named Jesus claiming to be the Son of God and continued to refine this story throughout history. "The story" can be found in manuscripts dating to the late first century A.D. which match in approximately 99.5% of their content and the content of the current text, deviating only in spelling and word order. There are no doctrinal changes to be found among these manuscripts. There are somewhere around 24,000 manuscripts and manuscript fragments for comparison. It is these manuscripts, not the Council of Nicaea, from which we learn about Jesus and his life. One of the council's purposes was to address the interpretation of those writings to eliminate such practices as self castration and other non-biblical teachings and practices which had sprung up.

      If we look at the history of early Christians, none of them received wealth for their beliefs and most were brutally persecuted. Not a good business model, if you ask me. Trust me when I say the members of the First Council of Nicaea headed by Emperor Constantine I of Rome (who was hardly a pauper and certainly not persecuted) very much had both profit and power in mind when it was formed -- and it worked too. It was direct result of this Council and the subsequent Councils that led the Christian Church into becoming the most powerful and wealthy entity in the history of the world just a few centuries later.

      I think you need to learn a bit more of history, GCH. Yes, Constantine was not persecuted and I did not think that was implied by my comments. It is the previous 200 years of persecution I was referring to. You seem to be implying that Christianity and the story of Jesus started with Nicaea, which is ludicrous. I think it is you who needs to learn a bit more of history, ShinmaWa, and read up on the First Council of Nicaea and what it's purpose was.
  9. Tough one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Easter is the date of the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after March 21... [T]he cycle of Easter dates repeat themselves every 5,700,000 years. The cycle of epacts (which encode the date of the full moon) in the Julian calendar repeat every nineteen years. There are two corrections made to the epact, each of which depend[s] only on the century; one repeats (modulo 30, which is what matters) every 120 centuries, the other every 375 centuries, so the [p]air of them repeat every 300,000 years. The days of the week are on a 400-year cycle, which doesn't matter because that's a factor of 300,000. So the Easter cycle has length the least common multiple of 19 and 300,000, which is 5,700,000 [years]."


    Must be a real bummer trying to reconcile all of that with the fact that we have Easter ONCE EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
  10. So what day did Jesus die on? by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I find it quite amusing that the birth of Jesus is pretty much set in stone (at least if I believe that day to be Christmas), but the date of his death (or resurrection) isn't.

    I guess even Christians smelled too much bullshit on the whole story, they rather kept it as vague as possible. ;)

    1. Re:So what day did Jesus die on? by icegreentea · · Score: 1

      Yeah. But which Christmas? Dec 25 or Jan 7?

    2. Re:So what day did Jesus die on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christmas is always December 25. January 6 is Epiphany, aka "Three Kings Day" which commemorates when the stargazers found the little blighter.

    3. Re:So what day did Jesus die on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The day of his birth is very much not set in stone, certainly not if you ask people of two distinct denominations.

      Religious scholars believe Jesus was born some time between 7-4 BC. The date of Christmas, December 25th, was chosen as was a day used by pagans to celebrate their various gods and goddesses, thus allowing Christians to celebrate without drawing too much attention to themselves. Candles and the ubiquitous fish symbol (the one without the feet;-)) are also left-overs of early Christianity's secrecy.

      It's not like they kept extensive birth records on the children of peasants.

      Why do computer geeks celebrate Halloween on Christmas? Because OCT 31 = DEC 25.

    4. Re:So what day did Jesus die on? by pyite · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find it quite amusing that the birth of Jesus is pretty much set in stone (at least if I believe that day to be Christmas), but the date of his death (or resurrection) isn't.

      Yes, it's set in stone on the wrong date. Shepherds were living outside with their flocks when Jesus was born, yet they wouldn't be doing this in December. It's too cold in Israel. In addition, Jesus died on Nisan 14 (the first full moon after the vernal equinox)... not on a Friday year after year.

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    5. Re:So what day did Jesus die on? by thomasdz · · Score: 1

      Thank-you from someone who celebrates on Jan 7. (and everyone gives me funny looks when I take that day off work)

      --
      Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
    6. Re:So what day did Jesus die on? by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but a number of Orthodox churches use the Julian calendar. And December 25th in the Julian calendar is January 7th in the Gregorian (for the next 92 years - 2100 will be a Julian leap year, and the difference will increase by another day.)
      So, yes, Christmas is always December 25th, but not everyone agrees which day that is...

    7. Re:So what day did Jesus die on? by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 1

      Thanks as well ! (just wanted to be counted, kind of curious how many of us are here on Slashdot)

    8. Re:So what day did Jesus die on? by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      I think it was luke who put Jesus being born in September. John was born in June and his mother was six months pregnant when the archangel told Mary she was to have a child.

      I can't find my links to it, but I had one claiming some significance to Dec. 25 before the pope declared it official which pretty much says the same as you.

      People tend to forget that rome outlawed Christianity and ordered everything mentioning it destroyed. It isn't until sometime around 90 AD that Jesus is first mentioned in recorded history by Josephus- a roman historian who wrote in his volume titled Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII.III

      Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day
    9. Re:So what day did Jesus die on? by Melllvar · · Score: 1

      It's even more "off" than that.

      One of the biggest problems the Council of Nicaea faced regarding the dating of Easter was that the imperfection of the Julian Calendar had already thrown off the date of the Spring Equinox by about 4 days in the four centuries since it had been enacted. But rather than resetting the calendar (as they did about 1300 years later with the Gregorian reforms), the Council decided to simply redefine the dates of the equinoxes.

      December 25 (the old Winter Equinox) was already becoming popular at the time for Jesus's "birthday;" but it wasn't yet officially established. By the time it became "officially" recognized as such (a few decades later), everyone had forgotten why the date was chosen in the first place (the Equinox), or even that the date wasn't even the original December 25th in the first place!

  11. So what is the calculation for Eastern Orthodox by VP · · Score: 1

    Christianity?

    1. Re:So what is the calculation for Eastern Orthodox by johnw · · Score: 2, Informative

      The same, except they use the Julian calendar where the western Christian churches use the Gregorian calendar. The calculation of the Jewish passover uses actual observations of the moon so that may be different again.

      You'll find it all on Wikepedia.

  12. Pope decides by iknownuttin · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I find it quite amusing that the birth of Jesus is pretty much set in stone (at least if I believe that day to be Christmas), but the date of his death (or resurrection) isn't.

    The date of birth of Jesus was also pulled out of the ass of some Pope. Christian Holidays were set on their particular dates to get medieval folks to stop their 'pagan' rituals and instead celebrate Christian rituals. Christmas:Winter solstice Easter:Beginning of Spring (Ostara now for you Wicans). I'm such a lapsed Catholic I can't remember the Holy days for other celestial events.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:Pope decides by BountyX · · Score: 1

      It's well-known that christian holidays took place during the same holidays as their pegan counter parts. Most of Christian Mythology was borrowed from previous relgions--concepts such as "Virgin Birth", "Son of God", and the majority of prophecies (which were also borrowed by the Jews from previous relgions). You end up with one of the most unoriginal and boring religions ever. Christianity succeeded; however, in advancing society by creating a more inclusive group. You could argue that christian created the middle class, a new concept in those days. Too lazy to quote my sources...sorry. Google to confirm ("Christian Mythology" in wikipedia is a start).

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    2. Re:Pope decides by compro01 · · Score: 1

      the feast of st. john is right around the june solstice, though i can't find anything happening near the september equinox.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Pope decides by Skeetskeetskeet · · Score: 0

      [i]The date of birth of Jesus was also pulled out of the ass of some Pope. [/i] Probably isn't the first time something was pulled from the ass of a Pope.

      --
      Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
    4. Re: Pope decides by ScienceDada · · Score: 1

      The Pope decided the date for Easter (treating Mar 21 as the Equinox) because the Gregorian Calendar was passed. Originally, Christians were divided on when to celebrate the Resurrection. This resulted in one of the divides between Eastern and Western Christendom... the Christians in Asia Minor celebrated it on the same date as the Jews (even in the diaspora).

      Eastern Orthodox still celebrate "Pascha" not "Easter" (Hebrew for passover is Pesach) and they do it on Sunday but it follows the Jewish Passover. The West deviated from this because of the Papacy, but not the East.

      In any case, the date of the Passover is set in the Old Covenant as the first full moon of spring. I has nothing to do with a Pope, nor with Ostara. Neither do most of the other Christian Holidays (Circumcision of Jesus, Entrance of Mary into the Temple, Pentecost, etc.). I imagine this is only amusing to those who are so ignorant or presumptuous as to expect it to be a "set" date on their calendar. It is a "set" date on the Jewish lunar calendar while "Christmas" is not.

    5. Re:Pope decides by ScienceDada · · Score: 1
      This is simply inaccurate. Perhaps you should quote some sources, as Wikipedia is hardly a source for factual debate. Here are holidays that are not based on anything Pagan:
      • Resurrection
      • Pentecost
      • Sunday of Orthodoxy
      • All Saints
      • Feast of Peter and Paul, the Holy Apostles
      • Holy Ascension
      • Circumcision of Christ
      • Presentation of the Lord
      • Transfiguration
      • Annunciation
      • Dormition of the Mother of God
      Not to even begin to enumerate the yearly commemorations of the Saints. You have no factual evidence for your claims except perhaps "Christmas" (which in the East is quite separated from the European traditions of Yule). This is unless you attempt to demonstate that the religion of Israel was "pagan."
    6. Re:Pope decides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The date of birth of Jesus was also pulled out of the ass of some Pope.

      Please, everyone knows He was born on Dec. 25, 0001 at midnight exactly. That's how the years are measured, it's right there in the Bible! (It would have been Dec. 25, 0000, but they hadn't invented zero yet. Later, one of the popes, Gregorian, readjusted the calendar to correct this.)

      In fact, they knew He would be born on that date millenia in advance, because God told the Prophets, starting with Adam and Eve. I mean, how do you think they knew when the Pharoahs died and Moses materialized on the mountain and the date of Noah's flood, if it weren't for the ancient scrolls dated 3000 BC and so on. That's what "BC" means - "Before Christ"! Even the non-Christians knew that, because it was such an important event, in fact the most important event in history (or "His story", as some people like to call it).

      They used BC because negative numbers weren't invented yet, and they actually survived quite well without them. Even better than us, because no one could get into debt.

    7. Re:Pope decides by BountyX · · Score: 1

      Here's some of my sources:

      http://www.pocm.info/

      Bargeman, Lisa.
      "The Egyptian Origins of Christianity"


      Pagan Influences in Christian Culture: The Hidden Legacy. http://www.litjournal.com/docs/fea_pagan2.html

      Peganism and Christianity
      By John Ireland
      Published 1825
      J. Murray

      Google Books :)

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    8. Re:Pope decides by xSauronx · · Score: 1
      Circumcision of Christ

      what the holy fuck kind of lousy idea is that for a holiday?

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    9. Re:Pope decides by BountyX · · Score: 1

      In Turkey the holiday of Sunnet celebrates a youths circumcision by parading him around town dressed as a prince and giving him lots of gifts and money. Its a rights of passage kind of thing. Im not sure if its still practiced in modern day Turkey, but you can check it out here http://www.enjoyturkey.com/info/culture/Life_Style.htm#s . Considering Roman influence in that region of the world was heavy....Circumcision of Chritst dosnt sound that crazy...

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    10. Re:Pope decides by ScienceDada · · Score: 1

      Sources like these (a) are almost exclusively addressing Roman Catholicism and don't touch Eastern Orthodoxy, and (b) are largely conjecture. Even if only early Christian sources (say before 300 A.D.) are examined, it is clear immediately that paganism was fiercely opposed by early Christians. And most of the practices are based directly upon the religion of Israel, which can be clearly demonstrated.

      Your "sources" are pathetic at best. Just because parallels can be drawn between cultures does not mean that the earlier is the origin of the later (correlation != causation).

    11. Re:Pope decides by iknownuttin · · Score: 1
      And most of the practices are based directly upon the religion of Israel, which can be clearly demonstrated.

      You forgot the Greek input. And sales job that the apostles made to them - Jesus was the Son of God and all that nonsense.

      --
      I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    12. Re:Pope decides by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Try the feast of tabernacles in September which is when Jesus was born.

      The problem is, when you take some religion and divide the year into quarters and then place other meaning within those quarters, you can take any subsequent date and lay claim to the origin by association without coming close to the original religion. Association because they took all the good dates has less meaning they you are giving it. You won't be able to get around this. When you also take into consideration that people where slaves to the elements and growing cycles, you won't be able to find any religion or even political dates of significance that can separate the two.

      Lets take this same connection and apply it to present day government holidays. Labor day is in September, we know the root of it come from a machinist union in the 1800 but according to the same logic, it was influenced by pagan holidays. We can go further, Imbloc in February 2 or so, which is awful close to MLKjr's and Washington's birthday celebrated birthday. Then there is Beltane on may 1st (hmm, is the communist labor day pagan?) which is strangely close to labor bay. The sumer solstice and the 4th of July are strikingly close, the revolution must be a cover story to get American's into pagan rituals. We have Columbus day and veterans day that surround the autumn equinox. And finally there is samhain and the winter solstice which can be said to cover thanks giving and Christmas. Sure, they aren't exactly the same days, and some of them need a stretch to fit, but you can clearly see how the US government and all the holiday's they felt where important enough to make a federal law about was influenced by pagan rituals. Our forefathers must have been attempting to hijack the pagan religion to call their own.

      There are actually more pagan holidays then that. Those are just the more significant ones I know of because of pagan friends. But loosely fitting, almost anything can be adapted to the same logic. This could also be why this logic is relatively new. Now I won't deny that pagan traditions haven't been incorporated into the holidays/ceremonies Christians practice but the existance of the holidays/customs/ceremonies aren't.

    13. Re:Pope decides by dwye · · Score: 1

      > The date of birth of Jesus was also pulled out of the ass of some Pope.

      Dionysus the Short was not Pope, just as the Julian Calendar was not designed by Gaius Julius Caesar but by an astronomer that he hired. And it was done pre-Medieval, in fact while there were still Roman Emperors in the West.

      And, yes, he blew half of his calculations (eg, year of birth) and produced obvious crap for others (birth was obviously in Spring, but that produces a Christmas date that could precede, follow, or even be ON Easter, depending on the year; far too messy for worshippers). So what? What is the date of Easter on Mars?

  13. Happy Zombie Jesus Day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    What?

    WHAT?

    1. Re:Happy Zombie Jesus Day! by groslyunderpaid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DISCLAIMER: I am an independant protestant with what is probably an unintended bias.

      *sigh*

      I'm tired of having to go over this with my atheist friends.

      Please. Remember this, if you remember nothing else.

      The term "Zombie Jesus" makes no sense.

      The religious belief is that Jesus "came back from the dead", or "rose from the dead". The angel said "Why seek ye the living among the dead?".

      Zombies, on the other hand, are not living OR dead. They are the undead, which is a different thing entirely.

      You would think since atheists believe both are make believe, they would be able to distinguish among the two.

      Then again maybe the real issue is that most of them don't understand the belief, so most of their comments sound like retardedness to those of us who do believe.

      Case in point: The last time I explained this to an atheist, their response was "Well why didn't he just come back again the 2nd time he died?"

      Really? If you are ignorant enough to be able to make that comment, you are too ignorant to argue against that establishment of religion.

  14. Re:Why would by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because they run a grocery store and need to know when to stock the chocolate bunnies and egg dyeing kits

    --
    Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
  15. Re:Why would by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you ever cast UFO believers as irrational?

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  16. Science: Calculating the Date of Easter by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Science ? Yea, right. By that logic astrology would be science too.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Science: Calculating the Date of Easter by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Science? Yea, right. By that logic astrology would be science too. I dunno, I'd say the math behind it all - calculating the orbits of the planets, Sun, and objects like that - is certainly Science, no? And that's all that this is really about, is it not?

      But I suppose you'll get modded +1, Christianity-bashing anyway.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  17. leap days? by acroyear · · Score: 1

    now, does all that fancy mathematics and statements about the repetition cycle of days include the Leap Year's Lead Day, as well as the fact that it didn't exist the last time this cycle started?

    --
    "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
    -- Joe
    1. Re:leap days? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 2, Informative

      now, does all that fancy mathematics and statements about the repetition cycle of days include the Leap Year's Lead Day, as well as the fact that it didn't exist the last time this cycle started?

      Yes, the formula by Gauß does. That's one of the reasons the mathematics have to be so fancy.

  18. Re:Why would by BlindRobin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Agreed, the history of time-keeping is a very interesting and important subject, however, an arcane method of determining the date for a specific holiday belongs in the category of 'curious minutiae' and is in and of it self just an obscure exercise, except for the devout adherents to it's attending myths.

  19. Re:Why would by CSMatt · · Score: 4, Funny

    In his defense, the picture tagged with the story is pi.

  20. Big deal? by popmaker · · Score: 1

    Would people care very much is we just settled for the first sunday in april?

    1. Re:Big deal? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, lets examine those supposed lies leading to this holiday. Jesus was in town for passover, A jewish holiday. After all, Jesus was a Jew. He was betrayed by Judas when he kissed him on the cheek in front of the roman guards. The guards imprisoned him and interrogated him in the house of annas where some father in law high priest Caiaphas (jew) determined he was a blasphemer.

      They take him (Jesus) to Pontius Pilate the roman governor who directs the Jewish leaders to pass judgment and sentencing according to their own customs and they say they aren't allowed to give a death sentence under roman law. Pilate interrogates Jesus himself and determine there is no basis for the charges but decided to turn the matte rover to King Herold of Galilee because Jesus was from his territory and he was also in town for the passover. King Herold questions Jesus and finds no reason to punish him or for charges to be drawn against him and give him back to Pilate. Pilate decided to whip him and let him go so the matter would be gone.

      The romans had a custom on passover where they let a prisoner go free which ha be decided by the jews. Caiaphas instructed the crowd to ask for the release of Barabbas, a prisoner convicted of murder during an insurrection. Pilate asked about Jesus and the crowd said crucify him.

      Then After being flogged, Jesus is led into public to be released and Caiaphas claims a new charge has been accused of Jesus, and demanded his death "because he claimed to be God's son". Pilate took him back inside and told the crowd that Jesus was innocent and he wanted no part of it but handed him over to the crowd to stop a riot from happening. Jesus was crucified Pierce in the side and all that and wrapped in a shroud and laid to rest in a tomb near the crucifixion site. And they had to do all that before sunset because the sabbath started (Jewish sabbath was Saturday because it was the seventh day of their week and it typically went from sundown) Three days later, he resurrected.

      So as the story goes, the date is important as we have three things going on. We have passover, the friday of passover, and the sunday after it. So easter is the first sunday after passover but we use a different calender then back then so we have to make calculations to convert from each. Ideally the passover would fall on the same passover as the jewish one but somewhere the decision to distance from the jews and do the calculations within the Christian community itself was made. Hense the computus. But the easter Sunday is forever linked to the passover which is marked by exodus in which the story unfolds whether you believe it or not.

    2. Re:Big deal? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      Nice story ... too bad it's a fabrication.

      Prove to me otherwise ... produce an original text that has been scientificly verified to have been written at the time of the events, not some story passed by word of mouth, copied imprecisely by hand, re-written by the Romans 300 years later to make themselves look good and to enforce their own morals on the people, translated imprecisely through many languages.

      You don't actually believe that truly accurate translations are even possible do you? Many languages can't even describe concepts that exist in other languages. .... And they had to do all that before sunset ... yes, if you're going to kill the supposed son of god, you better do it before the sabbath starts lest you make god angry.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    3. Re:Big deal? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Nice story ... too bad it's a fabrication.
      That's a possibility. Although we do know from jewish texts that someone named jesus (actually it was a different name Jesus is transliterated from some greek words) existed and claimed to be fulfilling prophecies in the jewish bible. But that doesn't mean anything happened or that it happened in a certain way.

      Prove to me otherwise ... produce an original text that has been scientificly verified to have been written at the time of the events, not some story passed by word of mouth, copied imprecisely by hand, re-written by the Romans 300 years later to make themselves look good and to enforce their own morals on the people, translated imprecisely through many languages.
      I don't have to. I'm not arguing that the story is true, I'm arguing that if your going to let it exist, you need to allow the binding elements to exist too. You asked why not just set a certain date and be done with it because after all it is a lie. I explained the story behind it and the significance of the Friday and Sunday following the passover which is why it has that complicated way of determining the real dates.

      If your going to allow the lie, then you need to allow the lie.

      You don't actually believe that truly accurate translations are even possible do you? Many languages can't even describe concepts that exist in other languages. .... And they had to do all that before sunset ... yes, if you're going to kill the supposed son of god, you better do it before the sabbath starts lest you make god angry.
      Lol.. Did you even read it? It wasn't the guards that where worried, it was friends of Jesus who took him to be buried that where worried. And no, it wasn't all done in a day. Jesus was supposedly dead for 3 days and came back in sunday. Now think about that. if the sabbath is Saturday but starts at dusk on friday, he came back on Sunday, then he would have been arrested and charged the day before. But then again, that is only common sense.

      And yes, you can have something like that interpreted correctly over the years. However, this makes no statement as to how true or if the story is true. There are sometimes glitches and inaccuracies but for the most part, they should be minimal.
  21. Anyone with tagging power? by lantastik · · Score: 0, Troll

    Feel free to tag this one under the whogivesashit category.

    1. Re:Anyone with tagging power? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      I'll tag it "wedontcarethatyoudontcare".

    2. Re:Anyone with tagging power? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Well, I do care deeply. I had at least 4 chocolate bunnies this year.

      Damn, got to go and get more before they are all sold out...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:Anyone with tagging power? by lantastik · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I didn't realize calculating the date of Easter was such an interesting topic to you. I'll go back to my troll hole and keep not giving a shit.

    4. Re:Anyone with tagging power? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Weird how your opinion doesn't map to everybody, huh? The world is crazy like that. I suspect your troll hole is not entirely metaphorical.

    5. Re:Anyone with tagging power? by lantastik · · Score: 1

      Weird how your opinion doesn't map to everybody, huh? The world is crazy like that. I suspect your troll hole is not entirely metaphorical.
      The hilarity continues... When is your next club date so I can be sure to get tickets well in advance? Back to my troll hole I go.
  22. Funny?! by 26199 · · Score: 1

    Er, mods ... I was being completely serious.

    Do not laugh at us! Or we will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...

  23. And then some.... by iknownuttin · · Score: 1
    You end up with one of the most unoriginal and boring religions ever.

    And then some. "Do onto others as you would have them do unto you." - Confucius

    Much of the philosophy was borrowed from Taoism and Buddhism and other Eastern thought.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:And then some.... by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      Surely you meant Leviticus 19:18 "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." Whether Moses borrowed from Buddha or the other way round is pointless speculation. Common themes extend across all moral codes mostly due to common sense.

  24. Only this year. by raehl · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah! The March of progress.

    Next year it will be April again though.

  25. Followup article needed by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

    Hope we see a followup article on how Passover is calculated - after all, they roughly conincided at least once 2000 years ago.....

    1. Re:Followup article needed by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      It's very easy: Passover comes on exactly the same dates every year in the Jewish Calendar. The Jewish and Gregorian calendars are different, so the date wanders around the Gregorian Calendar to a small extent while remaining fixed in the Jewish one.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Followup article needed by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      The Jewish and Gregorian calendars are different, so the date wanders around the Gregorian Calendar to a small extent while remaining fixed in the Jewish one. We definitely need to have an episode of Celebrity Death Match with Calendars.
  26. Easter Island by drquoz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could this be the solution to the mystery of Rapa Nui?

  27. You were pretty much done... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    ...when you said first sunday after the first full moon after the equinox.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  28. The date IS set in stone. by raehl · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's the first Sunday after the vernal equinox.

    The problem isn't that the date is not consistent; it's that the date is set using a DIFFERENT CALENDAR SYSTEM.

  29. Is anthropology a science? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    If it is (I think it is) then the calculation of the date of Easter is an interesting demonstration of how the patriarchal Jewish religion has in fact got roots in a matriarchal religion, since its calendar is based on a lunar rather than a solar cycle. (I'm simplifying). There are plenty of clues in the OT for the educated - but educating a few Protestant fundies as to the real underpinnings of their religion might hopefully get them thinking, and thinking helps cure ignorance, and curing ignorance helps do things like stop school boards from requiring teaching Creationism. So yes, it is a scientific article.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  30. Leap seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a repeat cycle that long, they also need to calculate in leap seconds as well, which means that the repeat pattern is even longer!

  31. Re:Why would by BlindRobin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yes, I'm really given up on tolerance for god-botherers as I find them to be, in the context of their faith, irrational. I was not trying to start an argument, just stating my position vis-a-vis the significance of this particular date relative to any other.

  32. Re:Why would by flyingfsck · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Denying that religion is irrational, doesn't make it any less irrational - on the contrary...

    Pi will never be equal to three, even though the holy bible says so.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  33. Re:Why would by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't care about the myths - the chocolate bunnies and eggs are good enough for me.

    Save the earth! It is the *only* planet with chocolate!

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  34. Annual celebrations are arbitrary anyway. by raehl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, it's set in stone on the wrong date.

    Right. Because we have to celebrate everything in exact intervals of one earth-sun-revolution, and only whole-number interval offsets from the time of the original event.

    There's no such thing as the 'right' and 'wrong' date. An event happens. Choosing to celebrate that event once a year (where "year" is the amount of time it takes the earth to go around the sun once) is arbitrary in the first place. It would be just as 'right' to celebrate it every 12 moon-earth revolutions, or 2 mercury-sun revolutions.

    If you're already going to base your celebration intervals on the convenience of how often one ball of rock revolves around one ball of gas because you happen to live on said ball of rock, you might as well always celebrate something on the 259th day of the year, or the 4th time the 4th day of the week falls in the 11th month of the year, or the 1st 7th day of the week following the vernal equinox.

    Getting bent out of shape because the commemoration/celebration of an event doesn't have the same calendar date as the original event - especially when the original event occured in a time period where the calendar you're using didn't even exist - seems pretty silly. Especially when you're celebrating the birth/death of the son of God.

    1. Re:Annual celebrations are arbitrary anyway. by mrcaseyj · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was born on a Thursday, so I want my family and friends to throw me a birthday party every Thursday. And yes, I expect plenty of presents :)

    2. Re:Annual celebrations are arbitrary anyway. by 2short · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well said. My wife and I celebrate our anniversary on the Saturday before Thanksgiving, because, well, because that's when we got married. If I mention this, some people think it's very strange. They immediately ask "Well, but what was the date?" and are horrified I don't know off the top of my head. Heck, we picked the day because it was a Saturday, why commemorate it mid-week?

    3. Re:Annual celebrations are arbitrary anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. Besides the various types of years, of which you have to pick one arbitrarily, there are many other periods that you could pick just as well, so all the "anniversary" nonsense is exceedingly arbitrary.

    4. Re:Annual celebrations are arbitrary anyway. by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      I know a couple that celebrates two anniversaries on leap year, because they

      • Got married on February 28th
      • Got married on the day before March 1st.

      Clever!

    5. Re:Annual celebrations are arbitrary anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think what was being complained about was the fact that Christmas is the same every year, but Easter varies...

  35. Easter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easter? The one with the anthropomorphic egg-laying rabbit, or the one with the zombie?

  36. In Perl by Phroggy · · Score: 5, Informative

    sub GetEasterDate {
      my($year)=@_;
      # http://www.smart.net/~mmontes/nature1876.html
      my $a=$year%19;
      my $b=int($year/100);
      my $c=$year%100;
      my $d=int($b/4);
      my $e=$b%4;
      my $f=int(($b+8)/25);
      my $g=int(($b-$f+1)/3);
      my $h=(19*$a+$b-$d-$g+15)%30;
      my $i=int($c/4);
      my $k=$c%4;
      my $l=(32+2*$e+2*$i-$h-$k)%7;
      my $m=int(($a+11*$h+22*$l)/451);
      my $month=int(($h+$l-7*$m+114)/31);
      my $p=($h+$l-7*$m+114)%31;
      my $day=$p+1;
      return (0,0,0,$day,$month-1,$year-1900);
    };

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    1. Re:In Perl by gimpeh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That is not nearly confusing enough. The original alogrithm was clear and concise. Your Perl implementation should therefore cause distress and confusion. You're a shame to the profession.

      --
      Script kiddies ate my sig.
    2. Re:In Perl by autophile · · Score: 1

      GetEasterDate in Perl, huh? My, my, my.

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    3. Re:In Perl by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      That is not nearly confusing enough. The original alogrithm was clear and concise. Your Perl implementation should therefore cause distress and confusion. You're a shame to the profession. It's not my Perl implementation, it's my Perl port of somebody else's implementation, which I have used successfully. By all means, feel free to write an implementation that is actually clear, and share it with the rest of us.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:In Perl by xhunter · · Score: 1

      Nice function.

      For the the layman date parser I'd add the return option:

          my $date = $year . '-'. $month . '-' . $day;
          return $date;

    5. Re:In Perl by andphi · · Score: 1

      A mod point, a mod point, my kingdom for a mod point.

      I would mod you up +1 funny for that bit of obfuscation. Intentional or otherwise, the indirection of that algorithm (which I know you got elsewhere, for I've read your comment to another reply already) and your decision not to streamline it is a commentary in and of itself. Well played, fellow /.er.

    6. Re:In Perl by omega987 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, now it all makes perfect sense.

    7. Re:In Perl by kramulous · · Score: 2

      Compared to some of the perl scripts I've seen, I thought it was rather elegant. So, yes, the GP is a shame to the profession. Must be a perl newbie. Never mind, another couple of years of solid perl and it'll be compacted to 19 or so characters.

      Actually, I'd like to see some formulas for the progression of perl programmers. Clearly, reducing the number of characters by 50% for each year is too simple. Damn. I see some irony approaching.

      --
      .
    8. Re:In Perl by The+Bender · · Score: 1

      Or you could just calculate it online in any of a million places, and have somebody else do the coding...

    9. Re:In Perl by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you're trying to display it in a human-readable format, do that. I wanted something I could pass to timelocal(), subtract 86400*47, and get the date of Mardi Gras.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    10. Re:In Perl by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Or you could just calculate it online in any of a million places, and have somebody else do the coding... Or I could just look at the calendar on the wall. What's your point?
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    11. Re:In Perl by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      As I said in the other post you referred to: feel free to clean it up and post a better version.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    12. Re:In Perl by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      #!/usr/bin/perl
      ($n,$s)=('phroggy',join'',map{(sort split'','b_jl msepr$hyacn"otg.')
      [$_]}map ord()-97=>split''=>'shfmfrajitkpstguofniabcedlfqkdcodhpnb')
      and print eval $s for(0..6);

      #!/usr/bin/perl
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

      #!/usr/bin/perl
      my $q='XyLEoNgGmGjkrhPrrJtctlhe,auesenaoOmCnEfc';
      for(sort split''=>substr$q,11,22,'Kfkz'){my$d=ord
      substr$q,0,1,'';print"\e[".(ord uc chr $d^64).chr
      (($d&32)/32+67)if($d<122);print}print"\n"#phroggy

      #!/usr/bin/perl
      for $a(1,46){for $b(0..7){$c=0;$_?hex substr(q), "ef7fa1866706ca",
      Just another Perl Hacker, ("eff02289402844"),2*$_+$a,2)&2**(7-$b):
      /..phroggy../ and $c+=2**(7-$_)for(0..7);$d.=chr $c;}}print"$d\n";

      #!/usr/bin/perl
      use strict;
      use warnings;
      ($,,$",$_,@_)=reverse qw(164 163 165 112),",\n",split '','\ ';
      my $music='Art';
      my($swing,$rock)=q
      s/hacker/performer/; # another creator of art...
      my $blues=~/^.(\w+).*#\s(\w+)/;
      my $jazz=substr((grep m($music)=>qx($^X$,-v))[$[],$?,scalar @_);
      my $pop=eval qq("\\@_");
      print $pop, $rock, $jazz, $swing;
      print;

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    13. Re:In Perl by andphi · · Score: 1

      That's just it: I don't feel like cleaning it up. It's perfect already. It's syntactically correct, functionally correct, and appropriate in context. What's to fix?

    14. Re:In Perl by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Well, that's why I left it too.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    15. Re:In Perl by kramulous · · Score: 1

      Sorry! My bad. I should have known better to look at the username and userID. That's the perl I'm used to :)

      --
      .
    16. Re:In Perl by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Apparently you didn't notice my signature either.

      Now, can you decipher them? :-P

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  37. In Vim Script by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Only valid between 1583 and 4899

    function! s:EasterSunday(year, return_value)

                    if a:year 4089
                                    return 0
                    endif
                    let a = a:year / 100
                    let b = a:year % 100
                    let c = (3 * (a + 25)) / 4
                    let d = (3 * (a + 25)) % 4
                    let e = (8 * (a + 11)) / 25
                    let f = (5 * a + b) % 19
                    let g = (19 * f + c - e) % 30
                    let h = (f + 11 * g) / 319
                    let j = (60 * (5 - d) + b) / 4
                    let k = (60 * (5 - d) + b) % 4
                    let m = ( 2 * j - k - g + h) % 7
                    let n = ( g - h + m + 114) / 31
                    let p = ( g - h + m + 114) % 31

                    if a:return_value == 1
                                    let easterday = p + 1
                                    return easterday
                    else
                                    let eastermonth = n
                                    return eastermonth
                    endif
    endfunction

  38. hmm by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it just me or does it seem like anything posted having to do with politics or religion turns into a mod point black hole?

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:hmm by BlindRobin · · Score: 1

      it's not just you, it's because politics and religion have very high subjectivity coefficients, especially religion where subjectivity is infinite rendering religion irrational by definition.

  39. Re:Why would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, but while the pre-christians most likely celebrated at the spring equinox (the pagan spring festival that would get adopted by the church since it conveniently already was themed around rebirth and renewal) the arbitrary need for Christians to celebrate it on a Sunday makes this whole date thing a bit more complicated (and less logical imho).

  40. Re:Why would by GvG · · Score: 2, Informative

    In my part of the world the Monday after Easter is a national holiday. I've actually implemented the Gaus algorithm to compute the date of Easter in multiple programs, to check if people working on a given date were entitled to extra compensation for working on a holiday.

  41. Recommended Reading by szyzyg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I won't hesitate to recommend the book 'Marking Time' by Duncan Steel - it's a great book about the history and evolution of calendars. The date of easter is a particularly interesting question and Duncan goes as far as to explain how the date of Easter was at the core of an English plan to attack the legitimacy of the Catholic church and how this plan was what triggered Britain's first attempts to colonize America, great stuff.

    1. Re:Recommended Reading by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like James Burke's Connections.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  42. What's the meaning of Easter? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    More East.

    *Ta-da-boom*

    I first saw this in a Tandberg cartoon years and years ago. PIty I can't find the original.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  43. Incompetent math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The days of the week are on a 400-year cycle,

    The days of the week are on a 7 day cycle. Who told you different ?

    There is a 400 year cycle of leap years, but this is an approximation that is usefull for the next few hundred years. It is not known yet whether a further adjustment will be done in the year 3200 or in 3600, that is for them to determine.

    As it is not exactly 400 year then using this as a 'factor' of 300,000 is pointless and wrong.

    > [T]he cycle of Easter dates repeat themselves every 5,700,000 years.

    We have no idea what the cycles will be in that time scale. The Earth may not have 365.24.. days in each year at that time, nor the moon have the same orbit.

  44. Stupid *nix Tricks by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 4, Funny
    cal 9 1752

    Calendars are funny things.

    --
    Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    1. Re:Stupid *nix Tricks by kramulous · · Score: 1

      nice!

      --
      .
    2. Re:Stupid *nix Tricks by RobBebop · · Score: 1
      September 1752 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

      Hmm... interesting bug.

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    3. Re:Stupid *nix Tricks by RobBebop · · Score: 1
      September 1752
      Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
      -- -- 01 02 14 15 16
      17 18 19 20 21 22 23
      24 25 26 27 28 29 30

      And thats why there is a preview button!

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    4. Re:Stupid *nix Tricks by hitchhacker · · Score: 1
      To save some the effort. From 1752:

      September 3-September 13 inclusive - These dates were omitted from the calendar in Britain as part of the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in the British Empire to correct the eleven day discrepancy between the Old Style and New Style dates.
      -metric
    5. Re:Stupid *nix Tricks by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I remember the problems that created in our IT department. Making sure our systems didn't crash due to the Gregorian Calendar switchover cost a lot of overtime.

      One would have thought that planning for Y2K would have gone more smoothly, seeing as how most of the management team had experience with that previous one.

      Microsoft, as usual, didn't get a patch out in time. In fact, they didn't get their calendar functions straightened out until the release of Windows DE (Windows for the Difference Engine).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Stupid *nix Tricks by Two9A · · Score: 1

      There is a reason for those days to be missing from the calendar. In 1752, some countries switched from the Julian method of calendaring dates to the Gregorian system. By that time, the two calendars were out of step by 11 days, so those 11 days were deleted.

      From what I recall, most countries had already switched some years earlier; hence, depending on where your locale is set, there'll be either 11 days missing from September 1752 or 10 days missing from October in a year I forget.

      Of course, there are plenty of oddities related to this, like Sweden overcorrecting its calendar and having to add a 30th of February to compensate; or Greece not switching to Gregorian until the 20th century, and having to add something like 15 days. It's all very well documented in the Calendar FAQ, highly recommended reading if you're bored.

      --
      xkcdsw: the unofficial archive of Making xkcd Slightly Worse
    7. Re:Stupid *nix Tricks by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Calendars are, indeed, funny things. My favorite aberration: February 30 in the Swedish calendar. There's nothing quite like botching your calendar for half a century because you forgot to skip a couple leap years.

      Of course, we are among the rare folk who have been able to enjoy two palindromic years in our lifetimes (my apologies to anyone 16 years of age or younger, as you've truly missed out and can only hope to live another 104 years to experience this) and the ultimate exception to the leap year pattern (my apologies to anyone 7 years of age or younger ... and if that's you, then you are really screwed since the next one is 392 years from now). But those aren't nearly as funny as February 30.

    8. Re:Stupid *nix Tricks by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1

      It's not a bug; it's a feature! Seriously!

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
  45. Re:It's not even accurate ... by cheater512 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm actually worried that in 500 years or so, FSM will be the dominant religion. :)

  46. Early or late... by kabloom · · Score: 1

    Easter is always either early or late. It's never when it's supposed to be.

  47. Why does easter change every year and... by beaverbrother · · Score: 1

    Why does Easter change date every year and Christmas does not. Were they set based on different calendars? Otherwise it would be indeed weird that the number of months between the two days switches all the time.

    1. Re:Why does easter change every year and... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Passover(last supper) versus a birthday.

    2. Re:Why does easter change every year and... by icegreentea · · Score: 1

      Easter is given an exact date in Jewish calender with is a lunar calender. That in itself creates part of the drift. Then theres the fact that the Church wanted Easter to always be on a Sunday, so you get even more craziness there. After a while I think they just completely decoupled it from Passover and the Jewish calender completely, and implimented the current rules.

  48. Curious by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just because I'm curious : where does it say that (not that it changes anything about the meaning of the bible if it does indeed say that, but I'm curious nonetheless) ?

    Besides, religion isn't irrational : this article gives a few hints on why (note : if you know a bit of stuff about the differences between religions you'll find that while the arguments presented are not about one single religion, they do exclude a lot of religions, in short the article makes a lot of sense when interpreted to a christian context, and specifically compares this christian(-oriented*) belief system to atheism, it states that atheist societies exist for about 20 years while christian communities generally survive for 150 years, with a number of them being older than any reliable records (about 200 years that is))

    * -oriented because of 2 facts :
    1) some members of other religions are "cryptochristian", ie they believe and practice the principles of christianity, even when in direct contradiction with their stated religion
    2) some christians ... (I'm sure you can fill this in, this seems to be a smaller group though)

    1. Re:Curious by magicchex · · Score: 2, Informative

      In 1 Kings 7:23: 'And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.'

      Now of course you have to assume the bible is giving accurate measurements, which is doubtful, so this argument is fairly bunk (even to an atheist such as myself).

      --
      How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
    2. Re:Curious by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      This seems to be as big a joke as the "the bible says the earth is flat" argument.

  49. The Golden Ratio Egg by bubezleeb · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course, when these calculations consider the addition of the Easter Bunny, the Fibonacci sequence, represented as an infinite mathematical set, must be applied to the cycle result. In the end you'll find it's bunnies all the way down.

  50. Re:Why would by Wuhao · · Score: 1

    Agreed, the history of time-keeping is a very interesting and important subject, however, an arcane method of determining the date for a specific holiday belongs in the category of 'curious minutiae' and is in and of it self just an obscure exercise, except for the devout adherents to it's attending myths. You could say this about any single aspect of the history of time-keeping. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, other than that you're annoyed that there's an article that even tangentially involves religion on Slashdot.
  51. Re:It's not even accurate ... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
    The idea that we'll still believe in ANY religion in 5,700,000 years is stupid.


    That's not the point, nor is that claimed. What the article meant was that the cycle is that long, not that we'd still be using it when it starts repeating.

    I gather from your post that you have nothing but contempt for anybody who you consider to be a fundamentalist. That's your privilege, of course. However, I see no reason for you to bring it into this discussion of the mathematical calculations behind determining the date of a religious holiday celebrated around the world by millions of people, few of whom could possibly be considered fundamentalists.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  52. Re:Why would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes.

  53. Re:Why would by Randwulf · · Score: 1

    I, for one, need to know when to set my Easter Bunny traps.

  54. Primitive Encryption by Tiger4 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you fail to notice that this is a long term pseudo-random number generator. A subject near and dear to the hearts of every /.er. Not bad considering the hardware they back in the day had was only slide rules and abacuses.

    --
    Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
  55. Re:Why would by Rufty · · Score: 1

    Yes. Every time. Just to give the religious a taste of how irritating door-to-door evangelicals are.

    --
    Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
  56. Re:It's not even accurate ... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ironically you're trying to show the illogical nature of one who professes to dislike Fundamentalists (presumably because of their illogical nature).

    Of course, the person in question probably has no idea where the term Fundamentalist comes from in modern Christian terms, so their Worldview on the issue is most likely to be entirely based in the media. Yes, the very media from which science should not be learned either.

    Or, "Fundamentalism ... I don't think that word means what you think it means."

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  57. vernal equinox on March 20 UTC this year by peter303 · · Score: 1

    And it was March 19 in California. Leap day made is seem earlier.

  58. Jesus rose on April 9, year 30 by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Some people use solar calendar, some lunar. If you were truly lunar like Jewish calendar, then you could celebrate resurrection three days after Passover. But that is only on Sunday once every seven years on average. Roman church want to always celebrate Easter on a Sunday, so they developed their quirky estimate of Easter.

    Back to the point. Astronomers following Jewish rules have calculated that Passover was on a Thursday during Pontius Pilate rule in year 30 (April 6) and 33 (April 2). The Bibilical King Herod died on March 13, 749 years after the founding of Rome, which is 4 BC in our calendar. So Jesus was born a little before Herolds death making Him 34ish or 37ish at death depending on the date. More people prefer the younger year if you google it. I guess he'd be about 2012 years old now, beating Mesthusaleuh!

  59. Catholic Easter != Orthodox Easter by pz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are millions of people who did not celebrate Easter today (23 March 2008) because they will be celebrating on 27 April 2008 (yep, 5 weeks later ... this is an unusual year). Orthodox Easter is computed to always fall after Passover (because, recall, the Last Supper was a Passover Seder).

    Here's a web site that is more, um, shall we say, enlightened: http://www.assa.org.au/edm.html

    One of the main differences between the calculations for Roman Catholic Easter and Eastern Orthodox Easter is in which calendar (Gregorian or Julian) is used. Use Google. It's actually quite interesting because of all the history and politics involved. It's not just simple (eg, exactly when is the moon full? over which point on the earth?) as one might think.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:Catholic Easter != Orthodox Easter by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 1
      There are millions of people who did not celebrate Easter today (23 March 2008) because they will be celebrating on 27 April 2008


      more like several hundred million, actually

    2. Re:Catholic Easter != Orthodox Easter by cocotoni · · Score: 1
      To be more precise, there are millions of Christians that are not celebrating Easter today, but will be celebrating it on 14th of April, in Julian calendar. Because, you see, the Eastern Orthodoxy is still keeping the dates based on the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian calendar.

      To make matters more complicated, there is also a smaller denomination of Eastern Orthodox Christians (New calendarists) that will be celebrating the Easter on 27th of April, in revised Julian calendar. That is because no Eastern Orthodox church uses the Gregorian calendar. And also because all Eastern Orthodox churches celebrate the Easter on the same day if not on the same date.

      Sorry to nitpick, but irks me when people mix-and-match the calendars. Point in question - we all celebrate the Christmas on the same date, 25th of December, only in Julian calendar that date happens to be (in these years) on 6th January in both revised Julian and in Gregorian calenders.

    3. Re:Catholic Easter != Orthodox Easter by pz · · Score: 1

      Point well taken (and goes to show how complicated things really are!), but I believe the Old Calendarists are in the minority within Orthodoxy, rather than the New Caldenarists.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    4. Re:Catholic Easter != Orthodox Easter by cocotoni · · Score: 1

      Complicated question, as well. More Orthodox churches follow the new style calendar (only Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, and the Georgian Orthodox Church are Old calendarsts), but given the size of the respective flocks, I would say that the majority of the Orthodox believers will celebrate their Christmas 13 days after the rest of the world (even just based on the size of the Russian Orthodox Church).

    5. Re:Catholic Easter != Orthodox Easter by Altari · · Score: 1

      What's up with Easter coming before Passover? I know that the RCC has a nice little formula...but, really, shouldn't Easter ALWAYS come after Passover, regardless of the formula?

  60. Re:It's not even accurate ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    But communion will be delicious.

  61. Re:Please surrender your US Citizenship immediatel by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

    Your superior intellect is obvious.

  62. Re:Why would by BlindRobin · · Score: 1

    fuxake.... yeah, at least those that believe what is unidentified are extraterrestrials(queue ferimin weeee oooo ooooo), they're quite tiresome along with the Bigfoot believers, Nessie believers, astrologers et al. Numpties all.

  63. Re:It's not even accurate ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Ironically you're trying to show the illogical nature of one who professes to dislike Fundamentalists (presumably because of their illogical nature).

    Of course, the person in question probably has no idea where the term Fundamentalist comes from in modern Christian terms, so their Worldview on the issue is most likely to be entirely based in the media. Yes, the very media from which science should not be learned either.

    Or, "Fundamentalism ... I don't think that word means what you think it means."

    Oh, I know what fundamentalists are like ... used to be one myself, when I mistakenly strayed from atheism. Of course, the logical contradictions, both in the bible, and in christian faith, belief, and action, killed that.

    All religion is a crock, not just the fundies, so its not like I treat them as a "special case".

  64. Jewish, not Pagan, and especially not Druid by billstewart · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The date of Easter is approximately "The Sunday in Passover", because (unlike Christmas, for which there's no recorded time of year for the original event, and therefore the holiday was set to rip off Roman pagan holidays, though some modern Yuletide customs were adopted from northern Europeans) the events being celebrated at Easter happened in conjunction with the Passover holiday, and there are symbolic and theological connections to Passover in addition to just the date. Since the Jews have a lunar calendar and the Romans used a solar calendar, it was somewhat difficult for the Romans to reconcile the two, and they weren't willing to use the obvious method ("ask some Jews when Passover is each year").


    If you want to say that Passover's date is set at spring pagan holiday time, you'll need to argue with your rabbi or maybe Lehrhaus Judaica about whether your druids are at all the same kinds of pagans as Caananites were. And if you want to say that the name "Easter" and the bunnies and and eggs and marshmallow chickens are ripped off from Germanic spring fertility goddess stuff, you'll have a tough time getting anybody to argue the other side except maybe some atheists who'll say that the Germanic fertility goddess folks ripped that off from nature, which provided the bunnies and eggs, or from the chemical industry who brought us marshmallow peeps.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Jewish, not Pagan, and especially not Druid by bkaul01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The date of Easter is approximately "The Sunday in Passover" Absolutely correct regarding the origins. Unfortunately, we don't calculate the date based on the Jewish Calendar, so some years (like this one), their observances are separated from each other by up to a month. Passover doesn't begin until April 20 in 2008.
    2. Re:Jewish, not Pagan, and especially not Druid by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      except maybe some atheists who'll say that the Germanic fertility goddess folks ripped that off from nature, which provided the bunnies and eggs, or from the chemical industry who brought us marshmallow peeps.
      Actually, nature ripped off the chemical industry and was in turn ripped off by the pagans. The chemical industry then sued the pagans, forcing them to settle for a ruinous amount of money. Paganism folded (back then chapter 11 wasn't yet written; they were only at chapter 4 at the time), which is why there aren't any pagan churches around anymore.

      Nature never was sued. There are rumors of a secret licensig deal; on the other hand polution wasn't really an issue before the whole mess started...
      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    3. Re:Jewish, not Pagan, and especially not Druid by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1, Troll

      There was me thinking that Christianity was just some sun worship cult. But your post seems to say that's not the case. In fact it's based on other religions, who happened to be sun worship cults. That cleared it up for me.

      Christmas = Winter Solstice
      Easter = Spring Equinox
      Michaelmas = Fall Equinox

      Jesus = Rah

      Those romans always trying to be in charge.

    4. Re:Jewish, not Pagan, and especially not Druid by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. No. It is based off actual events that people took into their own context. It has nothing to do with worshiping the sun or other cults that do.

      I've seen your type before, you read anything that attempts to disprove something and regard that something as now false without ever investigating any fallacies of the claim. You do this probably because in your head, you can justify your own beliefs and piss people who disagree with you off. I find it humorous that you write that with a straight face. Here you are attempting to claim religions are a fallacy and you use one to do so. I would call that the hight of stupidity and I would also clearly state that I would be more concerned over your recent (and yes, your claims are recent-like last half of the last century and forward) blind devotion to the untruth more then I would over something 20 centuries old.

      You should really investigate those claims a little better before making an ass of yourself.

    5. Re:Jewish, not Pagan, and especially not Druid by Usquebaugh · · Score: 0, Troll

      The correlation between the stories of Jesus/Rah/Buddha/Krishna etc is to strong to be anything but fabrication. One religion capitalizing on the history of another. Unless you are stating that the virgin birth, crucification, resurrection etc are historical truths?

      While the direct worship of the sun is not acknowledged in the modern day Christian church it's traditions and architecture point explicitly to sun worship.

      There is very little linking modern Christianity with the teachings of Jesus. Pauline Christianity has no direct link to Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church was based on Pauline Christianity.

    6. Re:Jewish, not Pagan, and especially not Druid by jfmiller · · Score: 1

      unlike Christmas, for which there's no recorded time of year for the original event If the writers of Matthew and Luke correctly recorded the nativity, then Jesus was born in early to mid-spring during the lambing season. This is the only time of year when shepherds would be "watching their flocks by night." The Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord, of late called Christmas was not intended to be Christs "Birthday Party." You are correct about the attempt to superimpose Christmas on celebrations of the Winter Solstice however.
      --
      Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
  65. In PHP by JoeCommodore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    $unixdatenum = easter_date($year);

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
    1. Re:In PHP by pclminion · · Score: 1

      The similarities between Perl and Emacs astound me more each day.

  66. Birth and death by StoatBringer · · Score: 1, Troll

    I've always thought it rather bizarre that Jesus is supposed to have been born on a fixed day (25th December), but his death (which is arguably even more important to Christianity) just kind of floats about sometime in spring. Yet presumably in Easter services the priest/vicar goes on about how "Jesus died on this day", as if it was actually a fixed date.

    Why can't they just agree on a single date and stick to it? I mean, they make up so much other nonsense and claim it as hard fact, so why not this as well?

    --
    Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
    1. Re:Birth and death by Wuhao · · Score: 3, Informative

      The date IS fixed -- it's all a matter of perspective. Dates are divisions of a calendar, and a calendar tracks time using periodic and regular astronomical events. Obviously, the easiest of these is the day, since it's easy to tell when the sun rises, and our body clocks (and therefore the work day) are tuned to it. Unfortunately, days are too granular: to really organize a civilization, you need larger logical units (such as weeks, months and years). Nowadays, we use a calendar which tracks the sidereal year -- the time it takes for the earth to complete one full orbit. For agricultural purposes, this is ideal, since it will tell you when to grow your crops. Unfortunately, it was a tricky one to calculate: even if you know that the earth orbits the sun, you're stuck dealing with the fact that the orbit is nearly circular so you can't find a visible difference in size in the sun, and the stars are so incredibly distant that there's no appreciable parallax. One cue that you CAN watch for is the equinox, and this is exactly what early calendars did to track the seasons. Your typical farmer isn't going to have the time or the tools to measure when the day and night are of equal length, but he can get a general feel for it, and you can have a few people set aside whose job in the springtime is to watch the length of each day.

      For the common man, an easier thing to watch is the moon. The phases of the moon are not only regular, but they're highly visible and uncomplicated. This means that if your calendar has something to do with the moon, then it's not only easy for your astronomers to track, but it's easy to explain to the unwashed masses: just tell them the festival is on the next new or full moon, and they'll know exactly what you mean. You can also track days for a very small number of days; 7, for instance. You can tell people "go out and work really hard for 6 days, and on the seventh, take a break," and most people can do that (and those that can't can just notice that those who can aren't working on some days). In the Jewish tradition, as you're probably aware, the seventh day is called the Sabbath, and is considered sacred.

      A mix of the two was popular -- the accessibility of the lunar calendar was nice, but the agricultural significance of a sidereal calendar was needed as well. For the Liturgical year, the calendar starts with the first new moon after the spring equinox. This means that there's not even any pretense that the calendar is equivalent to a sidereal year; the orbital period of the moon just isn't any fraction of the orbital period of the earth.

      Easter tries to mix the 3 logical units of measurement: the rules are complicated, but it essentially boils down to finding a date which 1) falls on a Sabbath, 2) comes quickly after an equinox and 3) ties into lunar phase. The way they chose was to set it at the first Sabbath following the first full moon following the spring equinox. But, approximations are applied to make it easier to plan: ancient astronomy was amazing for what they had at their disposal, but really very far from perfect. So, since the need to plan out a major annual festival was superior to the need for people to be able to look in the sky and see it get close, approximations were accepted over time. The "full moon" was assumed to occur 14 days after the new moon, which was in turn predicted from tables generated using an agreed-upon system of reckoning. The equinox was eventually taken to occur on March 21. The end result is that it no longer actually directly corresponds to an equinox or a lunar phase, and is instead based off of approximations that were chosen to make the date easier to work with. Nowadays, the approximation that most proponents of Easter date reform put forth is just to pick something like the first Sunday of April and use that. Others want to go back to a pure lunisolar basis and throw out the approximations. At this point, however, there's not much motivation to do either: we can compute Easter out arbitrarily far now, and it's printed on every c

    2. Re:Birth and death by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Funny

      I mean, they make up so much other nonsense and claim it as hard fact, so why not this as well?

            To me Easter represents the day that the Flying Spaghetti Monster lost a meatball to the Giant Chocolate Rabbit. But fortunately he has plenty more. Oh, and yes I had pasta today to commemorate this fact. RAmen.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Birth and death by superyooser · · Score: 1

      I've always thought it rather bizarre that Jesus is supposed to have been born on a fixed day (25th December), but his death (which is arguably even more important to Christianity) just kind of floats about sometime in spring.

      Yes, this is ironic, because we do know the exact day (on the Hebrew calendar) of Jesus' resurrection, yet we do not know the day or even the season of His birth! I follow the argument for a Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) birth in the fall --born on the first day of the feast and circumcised on the eighth day of the feast, a high Sabbath called Shemini Atzeret, the day after the "Great Hosanna." "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us..." - John 1:14

      Why can't they just agree on a single date and stick to it? I mean, they make up so much other nonsense and claim it as hard fact, so why not this as well?

      The main reason has to do with the anti-Jew sentiment in the early Church (4th century+). They threw out the Biblical/Jewish calendar and holy days and devised its own ways concerning "Christian holy days." Contributing to the confusion today may also be that the word pascha in the scripture is outrageously "translated" to Easter in the King James Version Bible.

      Easter is supposed to mark Messiah's resurrection, not the execution. The execution fulfilled the feast of Passover. The resurrection fulfills the Feast of Firstfruits three days later.

      The execution and resurrection are historically separated by three days. Thus, "Good Friday" should be "Good Thursday." If Christians want to observe the day of the execution, they should simply go with Passover, the 15th of Nissan, regardless of the day of the week.

    4. Re:Birth and death by hierofalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The date of Christ's death is fixed on the Jewish calendar. There are other comments giving possible actual dates listed here. I personally subscribe to the 15 Nisan 31 CE date (putting the crucifixion on a Wednesday), but I don't have problems with people who prefer 14 Nisan on a different year. Passover always starts with a day of preparation on 14 Nisan, each and every year, followed by the seven day passover feast. If you go through the chronology of the Bible, you'll then come up with a crucifixion on either the day of preparation or Passover itself. This is followed by three days in the grave and a Resurrection on the Jewish first day of the week (any time Saturday sunset to Sunday morning when the tomb was seen to be empty).

      The whole problem is that the Jewish calendar doesn't match up with ours. Its months are based on the lunar cycles and tend to have fixed lengths. In order to keep in sync with the Earth's rotation around the sun, leap days are added as needed and every few years a leap month is added. These are always added at the end of the year. Thus, 15 (or 14) Nisan is always a fixed date on the Jewish calendar since it's in the first month of the year, but it won't match to a fixed date on the Gregorian calendar. Likewise, the day of the Resurrection (three days after His crucifixion) will not always come on a Sunday since Passover moves w.r.t. the Gregorian calendar, which irritated a Bishop back in the early hundreds, and caused the goofy Easter mess in the first place. If you want a modern day parallel, look up Golda Meir's date of death. If you were to commemorate this as a Jew, you'd almost certainly do it on the same date on the Jewish calendar each year. Yet this moves the date on the Gregorian calendar around the same way Passover moves. Last year, it (8 Kislev) would have been November 18 Gregorian. Next year it will be December 5. The year after, it'll be back in November.

      If you're really interested, you should study what the passover was about (instituted long, long before Christ was born), and look at how perfectly it was a type of Christ's death. It's really fantastic. Even the actual Jewish passover rituals are a type of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. It's a shame not many Jews have really seen that yet. The next passover, when He returns for His church in the air will be just as great an event. We don't know when that will be, but many of the Christian "big events" (Christ's birth, Christ's death, the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit) have occurred at the times of established Jewish festivals.

      I tend to agree that we should celebrate Christ all the time and not just on one day, but I'd like to see it move to be in sync with passover, regardless of whether that happened to put it on a Sunday or not on the Gregorian calendar. They ought to get Maundy Thursday and Good Friday corrected while they're at it.

      And yes, the December 25th birth date is just as goofy - both for reasons of a fixed Jewish calendar date never being fixed on the Gregorian calendar, and for it needing to be tied to the Feast of Tabernacles which is much earlier in the year (15 Tishri). A good bet for a birth date would be October 4, BC 4 (Tishri 15, 3757) according to some sources.

      Getting bogged down in debates over dates obscures the most important facts. He was crucified to provide a holy sacrifice for our sin. He bore stripes for our healing. Roman guards were posted to guard the tomb under penalty of death if anything happened to the body. They didn't count on angels showing up and rolling away the covering rock (not that Christ needed angels help - that was for the benefit of the people who would come). He arose, just as He said He would after three days. He arose with keys to the death and the grave, and led those righteous souls who were being kept under Satan's control in the grave to heaven. He appeared bodily to hundreds after that point in time (and at the time of His resurrection, many others who had died were also seen in Jerusalem before going to Heaven). He is reigning on the right hand of God. At some point, God will send Him to gather up His church. You don't want to miss that time.

    5. Re:Birth and death by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 0

      I speak for myself, but many listen.

      1. Why would I want to be subservient to a God (in particular, Your god)?

      2. How do I know that this God isn't delusional and thinks of himself as a God? He has shown temper-tantrums in the past, if they are to be believed. Many died due to them.

      3.Christianity in its roots seems to duplicate many parts of Buddhism. Why Christianity rather than Buddhism, or atheism?

      4.Why do many those who call Christians, are also so bloodthirsty? Were you all not followers of a man of peace?

      5.Why would I want to become acquainted with people who down the ages have been as brutal as the rest of the "heathens"?

      6.(optional) If you are Jehova's Witness, do you think you're one of the 144,000? Why would I accept any kind of fate that would have me pitted against a fellow man?

      --
    6. Re:Birth and death by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      This is a hurried attempt at a reply - my apologies.

      1. It isn't in the fallen human nature to want to be subservient to anyone or anything. I can say that my life, when attempting to live as the Bible says a Christian should live, has been good. Not perfect, but good. I have a stable marriage and some pretty fine kids. I look at my co-workers - both married and single - and listen to the messes they get themselves into, the problems their kids are having, the bad days after the nights before, and feel blessed. The closer I get to the Christian ideal, the better things feel. When I drift away, the worse things seem to go. You will naturally discount the psychological basis for that, but it feels true to me. I give some things up to serve God. Some things are hard to give up, and some things I struggle with, but the return that He gives is good.

      Everyone serves some God. They may have elevated themselves to that position, where everything they do is right in their eyes. They may serve some other God that man has created. Or they may serve the God of the Bible. The difference between the God of the Bible and every other religion on earth is that our God became flesh, lived among us, and died for us. It sets Christianity apart from the rest of the world's religions.

      I don't know what your experience with Christianity has been - I suspect it wasn't a very good one. Growing up in the denomination that I grew up in, there was never any doubt that God is and is working in people's lives. There are a lot of dead denominations and churches out there. The second and third chapters of Revelation describe much of Christianity today. That is to our shame. But I assure you, God is still the great I am. He is still doing miracles today - I have seen them happen. He is still speaking through the Holy Spirit. I have heard the evidence. If you have not, then I suggest you seek out a 100% Bible believing pentecostal church and attend for awhile.

      2. As a human, I can't evaluate a being that is orders of magnitude more powerful than I am. I don't have the mental ability to wrap my mind around the concept.

      Because of Adam's disobedience, sin entered the world. It wasn't God's original plan for man. From the Garden of Eden on, God has been laying out the ground rules for what behavior was acceptable to Him and unacceptable to Him. That sin of Adam has been passed down to succeeding generations. The wages of sin is death. Many were killed directly by God, and many other nations were wiped out by Him. All true. If you evaluate the history as stated in the Bible though, all of these actions are directly traced to not following the rules He clearly set out and let them know about.

      The sin nature you inherited from your father will set you apart from God forever, just as much as the sins that you have committed. You're no different from me. All of the times you did something against God and the "conscience" people talk about pricked your heart that you were doing wrong, it was His Holy Spirit trying to keep you on the right path. Nobody will have any excuses when they stand before God at the time of judgment. God has set out His plans for salvation for each generation. Once you have heard about Christ and His death on the cross for you, as you are now, you will make a choice to either admit you are a sinner, accept His sacrifice for your sin, and repent and turn to God -- or reject the whole concept and keep on living as you want to live. God gives you the choice, just as Adam and all the rest of those who God killed had a choice. It's a choice with eternal consequences.

      But to counter the image of the blood thirsty God, let me relate this testimony that was given by our Adult teacher a couple of weeks ago. His dad and mom divorced when he was 5. His dad remarried to a Christian woman who began praying for his dad and him. The teacher was saved in college, and began to go back to take Bible studies at his mom's house every Friday night (which of course dad didn't

    7. Re:Birth and death by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      I do thank you for answering. I didn't think you would due to the oldness of this slashdot article. I'll give a bit more reasoning behind my question (some of which were flamebait-ish).

      1. I study, and will minor in anthropology (major in electrical engineering). You couldn't believe how many belief systems there are out there, and the varied attributes given to each. Some wish for converts, while others deign people emulating their religion (native americans do not want followers- aka white guys).

      Nearly every religion says that they are right, and all others are wrong, while dismissing to $evil_place those who do not believe. I choose to reject any religion that attempts to condemn me for any arbitrary reason.

      My experience with Christianity: I was raised Catholic, and well versed with the faith, along with the church's history through the ages. I have studied the lost works of the Bible, including why the Catholics decided to erase them (Gnostics and other pre 300ad groups). I also have a good friend who I discuss religious issues with. He's soon to be a PhD in Catholic studies through St. Meinrad.

      What I choose to question is after careful deliberation on "why".

      2. My basis for this question is it compares the schism between Hindusim and Buddhism. Buddhism came from Hinduism and its pantheon of gods. Buddhists had to come to terms what exactly these beings were: They were delusional entities that were of higher planes of existence, yet did not embody perfection.

      I also directly question the acts the Old Testament God did: we would call them acts of genocide and serial murderer. I do not party with criminals, as I do not want to associate with them. The same could be said for Old Testament God. I reject his light, as it is a false light of hate, intolerance, injustice: I would call these evil.

      The New Testament comes from a completely different viewpoint: that of loving-kindness. One is required to love and be kind to all others, regardless of any differences. One is required to not challenge evil. Instead of the 10 Commandments, we have the Beatitudes. Instead of a great powerful and rich king, we have a pauper who was born with animals, who shows by compassion alone how to be greater than any other living king.

      3. Catholics teach that many stories in the Bible are figurative ways to describe to older generations creation myths that do not include science. For example, we do not believe that Genesis happened (we do accept the theories of solar system genesis), but was a figurative way to explain God doing something hat we couldn't see.

      I do not accept that Genesis happened in any way mentioned in the Bible, as I am a scientist. Evidence indicates that the earth has been here much longer than a few thousand years, however God could have created it that way (viewpoint mentioned in "Job: A Comedy of Errors" - Heinlein). Still, what are alliterations and what are not?

      When one studies the Synaptic Gospels, one can refer to older works of transcription found in the 1500's, the 1300's, the 1000's, 600's, and earlier. One can even trace what priest placed what passage in any arbitrary book. For example, the story of the adulteress by the well seems to have been created in 1100. I cannot find the academic paper that outlines this (right now, no access to scholastic journals from where I am).

      It is said that the act of God makes sure that all copies of the Bible are inspired, no.. written by God. Why then, are there errors and insertions of false content? How can I trust anything, whether it be a description of a more complex event, or outright fake? That's my quarrel.

      5. But I have found hatred and intolerance everywhere I go.. except one place. That one place is a Buddhist temple. They seek to extinguish hate, intolerance... craving. Every church I have been to threatens, either directly or indirectly, that you will go to hell if you don't follow us. I have heard this time and time again, phrased in parables and in sermons, and in lectures.

      --
    8. Re:Birth and death by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      2. The viewpoint of both Testaments is the same. The Old Testament points, through the Jewish sacrificial system toward Christ. The New Testament points back toward Him. These are things you know from your Catholic upbringing. But the same God reigns in heaven in both the Old and New Testaments. He has the same standards now as He had then. The New Testament requires, if anything, a higher standard of behavior than the Old Testament. Many times Christ said - you have heard X, but I say unto you Y, where Y was greater than or a tougher standard than X. Since you reject Revelation, you conclude that the New Testament is full of loving kindness. But that is simply because you choose to reject the inconvenient bits that still point to the same Holy God, executing judgment in righteousness. Humans are not arbiters of good and evil. The Bible says our righteousness is as filthy rags compared to God's.

      3. The Bible only has a couple of scriptures about the beginning - Gen. 1:1 and John 1:3. There is no time reference with either, other than "in the beginning". The Bible record (taken in whole from both Testaments) points to a pre-Adamite civilization (Psalms, Isaiah, 2 Pet) and in no way implies an Earth age of a few thousand years. I very much enjoyed "Job: A Comedy of Errors". Heinlein is one of my favorite authors. But just because he has a bit of fun with alternative deity systems doesn't obviate Christianity.

      What is interesting to me is that the fossil record of early man has several paths and branches that seemingly dead end and then there is man appearing on the scene in the current form a short time later (in the geologic sense). You can have millions of years of natural selection and still have things get wiped out by an angry God and then restarted in similar fashion to what was before He had to stamp out evil. Doesn't make Genesis wrong. The thought that God could do that may disturb us. We may not like it. But He isn't asking us to like it. He's giving us His expectations for our behavior and faithfully warns us of the consequences if we don't comply. That He usually follows through with the consequences is not His fault. It isn't like His rules are all that hard to follow.

      I think it was perhaps Clarke who, in one of his short stories, talked about Moses and Aaron complaining about the high cost of parchment, their readership base, etcetera in trying to convince Moses to go light on the pre-history to keep costs down. While amusing, it does point out a significant reality of the Bible. Its job isn't to account for 100% of Earth's history. Its job is to point the way to Christ.

      Nobody will (or should) tell you that all copies of the Bible are inerrant or inspired in their current form. The only thing that the Bible claims is that as originally given to the original writers it was truth, inspired, and inerrant. If it has slipped over the ages as various people have copied it or handed it down by tradition, then that isn't God's fault. Considering the time span involved, I'd say a pretty good job has been done keeping the word intact. The more that archeology uncovers, the more items that originally seemed dubious are verified. There may be unfortunate alterations that have happened over time. Few, if any, change the basic substance of its message. You can't just ignore the big picture, which is comes through loud and clear, because there have been a couple of alterations in minor passages over the long passage of time that people took in writing down both testaments.

      5. It is the job of every religion to communicate truth as they see it. Buddhism's lure is that it just says live together in harmony. It is one of the ultimate low cost sounds good feels good tools Satan has. You have every right to object to beliefs that other people hold as true and not follow them. But you shouldn't expect to go to a church of religion A (whatever it is) and have it appear to be religion F (whatever it is). Christianity's doctrines are pretty simple. Accept Christ as your Savior or end up i

    9. Re:Birth and death by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      I think we can both agree that we each have different beliefs. I can respect that.

      Whether yours is the ultimate answer, or mine is the ultimate answer.. I don't know. I don't pretend to know. However, I do consider this thought-experiment to be interesting (in a good way).

      I do thank you for conversing. It was enlightening.

      Creepy Crawler

      --
    10. Re:Birth and death by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      Best wishes.

  67. Counterpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hm... how do we explain the origin of Jesus' amazing superpowers? How is he able to walk on water, cure leprosy, and feed multitudes using a single loaf of bread, if he's just some average Jew? It's just not plausible, our audience will never buy it."

    To be fair, us gentiles don't have any solid evidence that these aren't standard class features. I work next door to a Jew (not Jesus), and I've seen zero instances of leprosy in my office as long as he's worked here.

    Maybe the amazing story isn't to convince us that Jesus was special, but to convince us that the Jews walking among us today are *normal*. I mean, it's working, isn't it? I've never thought that Jews could walk on water.

    I bet after all those years of "Shealtiel, more bread!", they had a temple meeting and said "Fuck it, let's come up with some way we can be bankers instead of waiters -- we're pretty good at telling stories, right?".

    "Our fall guy will need to be miraculous from birth, so Abieezer, you go hang out in the poor section of town, and the next Jewish kid that's born, he's our man. Take the parents some gold or myrrh or something so we're not total schmucks."
  68. So when the F did Jesus die, anyway ? by billcopc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I never understood the whole stink with these fuzzy holidays. Isn't Easter supposed to be the day Jesus died or some other TV magic bullshit stunt of his ? I'm pretty sure he didn't perform complex astronomical calculations before deciding to get stabbed by a bunch of half-breeds.

    I mean, Christianity is funny enough to begin with, but having a non-fixed historic date is the pinnacle of ridicule. Just pick a date and celebrate already... that's the point! The number isn't the important part. Why can't they just pull a number out of a hat and say Easter's on day N from now on ?

    I only care because I celebrate post-Easter, and by "celebrate" I mean "eat lots of discounted milk chocolate". Maybe if they didn't land it on a Sunday each time, I could get a weekday off where there's actual good TV to watch, instead of the boring 60's Disney movies and Pope biographies.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  69. or on the command-line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...well, at least for those fortunate enough to be
    working with a system supporting that kind of stuff
    (like *cough* FreeBSD *cough*):

      ncal -e

    see http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ncal

  70. Which explains why it is plain silly! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Without delving into the (overly?) detailed explanation at Wikipedia, I do not see any reason whatever for the celebration of someone's resurrection to be tied to the full moon. A simple calendar date would suffice, as it does for other holidays. For historical reasons, the celebration of Easter was originally tied to Passover, but there is really no reason for that to still be the case. A simple "the first Sunday after March 21" or something like that would work just fine.

    Sometimes I think "the Church" makes things complicated on purpose, just to make it easier for them to retain control.

    1. Re:Which explains why it is plain silly! by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I think "the Church" makes things complicated on purpose, just to make it easier for them to retain control.
      I think a version of Hanlon's razor may apply here - the setting of a fixed date for Easter would require agreement on what date to pick, and efforts on that front haven't got very far.
    2. Re:Which explains why it is plain silly! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That is also quite plausible, though I favor attribution to Heinlein rather than Hanlon.

    3. Re:Which explains why it is plain silly! by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      I do not see any reason whatever for the celebration of someone's resurrection to be tied to the full moon. A simple calendar date would suffice, as it does for other holidays.


      Actually it is a simple calendar date on a lunar calendar, which I believe is actually more accurate than the solar calendar we use today.
      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    4. Re:Which explains why it is plain silly! by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In this case, there happen to be important connections to passover and Christ's death and resurrection. In other words, it is part of the story plot. A simple day on the calender would remove that connection to a degree that most people wouldn't be comfortable with. Jesus was in town for passover- he was a jew after all.

      The story of Jesus is complicated, especially so when you bring the trinity into it. But the connections to passover would lose it's significance when for the most part passover is still practiced widely. As it is, the rituals and celebrations would become a droned out day with little or no meaning without the connection.

  71. It was a mistranslation. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    The phrase meaning "young woman" was mistranslated as "virgin". I am sure you can see how easy that would be to do, especially in a time when ALL "young women" were expected to be virgins. The historical record bears this out.

    1. Re:It was a mistranslation. by scottblascocomposer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes and no. In the Hebrew Bible, the word used by Isaiah is rightly translated as "young woman." In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible produced nearly 200 years before Christ, and much older than the oldest extant Hebrew language Bible), however, the word is in fact "virgin."

      Many Christians themselves, not to mention those who don't know much about the religion (no offense, but the majority of /.), are unaware of the fact that the Apostles themselves would most likely have used the Greek scriptures--indeed, it is apparent throughout the New Testament that the Hebrew scriptures being quoted nearly all are of Septuagintal origin.

      --
      To reign is to serve.
    2. Re:It was a mistranslation. by Selivanow · · Score: 1

      "Many Christians themselves, not to mention those who don't know much about the religion (no offense, but the majority of /.)"

      Um, don't you mean the majority of Christians? Most people, in my experience, are sheep and will believe whatever the priest, pastor, etc tell them instead of finding out for themselves.
      Not to mention the fact that you have the KJV of the bible...can anyone explain that to me? As far as I understand it, King James said that "God" told him that the bible was written wrong and he needed to correct it. If that were the case, why the hell did God wait so damn long to fix it?

      --
      -- ...trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -Bruce Schneier
    3. Re:It was a mistranslation. by scottblascocomposer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whether it is the majority I don't know, but it is certainly many.

      You have been substantially misled if that is your understanding. The history of the KJV is somewhat interesting, although I admit to having tired long ago of the debates over its continued and/or exclusive use.

      Long story almost criminally shortened, there were problems with the available English translations at the time. In response to complaints to that effect from the clergy, King James proposed, authorized, and funded a project to produce a new interpretation for use in the Church of England. There is no "God told me to fix the Bible" about it, and King James himself took no hand in the translation work. There certainly are controversies and problems around the project, but it was not as you have been lead to believe.

      --
      To reign is to serve.
    4. Re:It was a mistranslation. by Selivanow · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info! I have to admit, I never really cared that much to bother to check into it. People believe what they want to believe...probably why there are so many denominations of Christianity. :)

      --
      -- ...trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -Bruce Schneier
  72. Background for non-Brits: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently the English get a 4-day weekend (!!) for Easter. Thus it actually makes some sense for the schools to care about such things.

  73. In PHP by guycouch · · Score: 1

    easter_date($year);

  74. Good Grief it's all wrong anyway. by psychosmyth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every day is Easter! People like to kill Christ over and over and then make the point of reminding us in detail of the crucifiction over and over. It happened once and He lives now and forever. The Church has a habit of missing the point of much of God's Word and this puts Christians in a position to be taunted,contradicted and mis-led. I do celebrate Christian holidays but more low-key. Christians are to celebrate Christ 24/7/365. I do think it's neat how this formula was derived though and I'd rather see that as the topic here than see negative comments about Easter. A true Christian would not dare insult Islam or Judeism or any other religion but offer to share Christ's teachings instead. Please be respectful or the mod-man will stike.

  75. Re:Why would by Firrenzi · · Score: 1

    When all that needs to be done is follow the seasons and the eqinoxes and you have your dates already. I find this much ado about nothing for a stolen pagan holiday

    --
    The Tao that can be named is not the Tao
  76. And the first scientists were monks because . . . by Rowan_u · · Score: 1

    It was the only profession which left time for science and contemplation ;)

    --
    only one everything
  77. Re:Why would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe in UFOs. I've *seen* UFOs. (Unidentified? check. Flying? check. Object? check.)

    I haven't seen a child of god raised from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion. If I had, I'm sure I'd be a believer in that, too.

  78. Re: Thinking fundies ?? by psychodelicacy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I disagree. Science tells us that, if we don't eat in a certain way, we will die prematurely. It tells us that we must recycle more plastic in order to save the planet. It tells us that the cure for depression is medication. And when we've done all those things (because we'd be stupid, lazy, immoral if we didn't) a whole new lot of science comes along and proves that the opposite is true.

    A good scientific education may teach you how to think, but for most people science is something that dictates government policy, legislation, and lifestyle choices without their actually having to understand any of the details or processes. For most people, science becomes a faith. I'd bet that the average American or Briton does more things based on the latest scientific evidence than s/he does based on religious belief.

    --
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  79. Re:And the first scientists were monks because . . by psychodelicacy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Copernicus: 1473-1543 Mendel: 1822-1884 Kelvin: 1824-1907 Planck: 1858-1947 Eddington: 1882-1944 Lemaitre: 1894-1966 Knuth: 1938-

    So, Copernicus may have been a Christian for the sake of convenience, but I think the others had/have other choices!

    --
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  80. Re:It's not even accurate ... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    Oh okay, so you're fully aware that the name comes from a series of articles and books called "The Fundamentals", an attempt to document the most essential parts of the Christian Faith so that believers would have a reference as to what they had in common with each other despite their other differences?

    You knew then that "Fundamentalist" simply referred within the Christian community to a group of people who accepted those fundamentalists, not to "radicals" or any other term you've aggregated with it since?

    Just because I know people who call themselves scientists doesn't mean they represent science and just because you knew people who called themselves fundamentalists doesn't mean all or any of their behaviours represented that title.

    But you knew that.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  81. Re:Why would by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    Yes, but if they start trying to calculate the date of some event tied with the next return of a specific comet, that will still be science.

    There is a lot of science involved in determining the date of easter, and a little politics too. Religion has nothing to do with it, its a historical and cultural reality, religion aside. Considering Easter Friday is the date of the historical death of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, there's nothing strange or cooky about figuring out the date in question for commemeration's sake alone.

    Jesus had a huge cultural effect on the people of his time and people since, and the study of those effects is also science, in case you're confused about everything outside physics, biology and chemistry being studiable.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  82. Okay, but... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One still has to take into account what is really going on when the word 'virgin' is used, based on the context of the writing. Even if the translation is literal, a writer might assume that a young woman is 'virginal' when she is, in fact, not. At any given time, not many people have that actual knowledge about an individual, and so it is usually nothing but an assumption, in any time or place. And given the actual record of history, that assumption is probably wrong more often than right.

    1. Re:Okay, but... by scottblascocomposer · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. And beyond writers' (or interpreters') assumptions, in the context of a prophetic passage in the Hebrew scriptures the language is very often symbolic (the same is true of prophetic passages in the Christian New Testament). Interpretation of prophecy is tricky business, which is why St. Peter specifically says it should not be left up to individual opinion to do so. Where the authority to do so is located is a much larger question, but not one I would undertake where it is likely to be unappreciated (such as where one would rather expect to find "News for Nerds"). Here is an interesting article on the subject if anyone's interested, though (particularly parts II and III).

      Of course, all of this could open a whole other can of worms, especially among the crazier elements of contemporary American Evangelicals who are convinced that the Book of Revelations is a literal account of what will happen (soon, according to some), or that the world is 6,000 years old. Despite their relative vocality, these are decidedly the minority of those who identify themselves as "Christian."

      --
      To reign is to serve.
    2. Re:Okay, but... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Interpretation of prophecy is tricky business, which is why St. Peter specifically says it should not be left up to individual opinion to do so.
      That verse could well be read as pertaining to the origin of scripture not being of private interpretation, rather than the reading. Then the understanding would be compatible with Acts 17:11, where the Beroeans are commended as "more noble" that the Thessalonicans for assessing St. Paul's teaching according to the scripture.

      If even an apostle does not have such authority that his teaching ought not to be scrutinized by the hearers, then what possible position is there in the church that is elevated above such scrutiny? Or who was there, among the Beroeans, that as yet did not know the Gospel, but was a higher authority on it than St. Paul?

      I suggest to you that if the scriptures are true, then:
      1. Only the meaning God intends for the scriptures is the correct understanding.
      2. Individual accountability to God requires individual understanding.
      3. As Christ refered to himself as being the truth it would be theoretically possible, by knowing him, to know the truth even if one had a lack of understanding of scripture.
    3. Re:Okay, but... by scottblascocomposer · · Score: 1

      The verse actually speaks quite clearly to both matters: neither the origin nor the correct interpretation is of human origin. Not to mention that the sort of interpretation you suggest ("putting on the mind of Christ," as some people claim) has lead only to multiplying schismatic groups all claiming the true interpretation, none of which accords with the early Church documents which we actually have, dating from the late 1st century. And what is "knowing" or "putting on the mind of" Christ? That changes from group to group--as long as your interpretation agrees with theirs, you "know" Christ?

      This may not sway you from your way of interpretation, but be aware that you will search in vain for its appearance before the Protestant schism. The early Church knew nothing of that kind of individualistic religion, and the example of the Bereans does not mean what you think it does.

      Regarding the Bereans, it was not for their searching the scriptures, but for their openness that they were commended. Read it again. They were "more receptive" (or noble, depending on the translation) "for they welcomed the message very eagerly," not because of their searching the scriptures. This is compared to the Thessalonicans, who rejected and jealously mistreated the Apostle. The Thessalonicans also searched the scriptures at length (which were not the Gospels, as you seem to be assuming, but rather the Septuagint--the Gospels did not yet exist in written form), but had not been open to the new (oral) teaching from Paul as the Bereans were. Remember, neither the Bereans nor the Thessalonicans being discussed in these passages were Christians. They were both Jewish communities to whom Paul came preaching out of the Jewish scriptures.

      There's a much fuller explanation of all of this at this page, if you're interested. The whole idea of "sola scriptura" does not enter the equation, and was never read into that passage until Protestants decided they needed to reinterpret scripture to meet their needs.

      --
      To reign is to serve.
    4. Re:Okay, but... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      The translation you reference still says they "examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so", which is to say that they judged the Apostles teaching according to their own understanding of scripture. Since this is stated as part of a commendation to them, without caveat, it is absurd to claim that this is not a part of the commended behaviour. There is nothing in the verse that grammatically requires that people are not to understand the scripture themselves, although common sense would dictate that if scripture is from God, then only God's intended meaning is valid.

      Besides, I haven't suggested a sort (or method) of interpretation, but an entirely different concept of how truth is to be understood. Rather than discuss it here I will send you an email so that if you wish to explore this further we can do so privately.

      However, I will say that allowing another, by position of authority, to dictate correct interpretation of scripture is to allow another to dictate the contents of one's mind. As such, it is fundamentally a rejection of the call of Christ. http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=73543724 "For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters;" and the promise of Christ http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=73543724 "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me." Not, "the priest hears my voice, and he'll let the sheep know what I've said".

  83. Re:It's not even accurate ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    The 1917 articles that made up "The Fundamentals" was never all that widely distributed.

    As the saying goes - do the math. 12 volumes. ~ 2 million books total. That means less than 170,000 sets total distribution over the course of 80 years, or 2,083 sets per annum. Not very influential in the great scheme of things ...

    The term "fundamentalists" as currently used refers to the descendents of the evangelical fundamentalist "revival" / "Moral Majority" radicalization/polticization in North America in the '70s and the '80s'. to paraphrase the Buick commercial, its not your grandfather's fundamentalism.

    The basics never changed - sola scriptura, sola fida, sola gracia. The way they are applied in the social and political context is what changed, and why fundies are derided - both because the bible is internally inconsistent (so much for "sola scriptura"), and because fundies continually "put their foot in it" by their conduct, both in public and in private, demonstrating that the "christian virtues" are more "honoured in the breech" than anything else. Also, it doesn't help that science is able to show that some of the claims of the bible (for example, that homosexuality is a "sin") are just plain stupid talk by ignorant fools, and that same-sex activity is normal for many mammals, contrary to the ignorant ramblings preached from pulpits every weekend. I'm sure if you've been to any fundie church, you've heard sermons claiming that "no other animal engages in such behaviour". Its like none of these preachers has ever seen a dog try to hump their leg - same sex AND bestiality rolled into one ...

    But that's what you get when "faith" and "you gotta believe" is more important than the evidence of your own eyes, and why its so EASY to make fun of fundies.

  84. Re:Why would by Alarindris · · Score: 1

    Fe word fat i fink you are looking thore is "theremin". Thee thigh though thumb, I hear fe sound oth a theremin.

  85. Retrorevision - by the Mind/Dogma Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point, flying squid. It's even harder to make revisions when the "original" explanations are full of holes.

    I'm an ex-Christian; and I left as a result of rejecting their Christ due to historical/scriptural incompatibility. In searching for SECULAR Accounts of the characters who appeared in the Christian Gospel, I was disappointed, yet vindicated not to find it in abundance.

    From what I've read, Josephus's entry has been mostly deemed as fraudulent, though Pilate was recorded, Jesus and his disciples' accounts weren't. Considering that he reportedly spent 3+years doing what he did - including 40 days after his alleged resurrection - not finding any abundance of secular recordings has been disappointing - and considering all the acts of conquest, inquisition, repression, and colonial fleecing (w/help from missionaries) conducted by the Churches (including all factions and cult derivatives here), unconscionable.

    I recall encountering a good number of Catholic-types and Mormons "mind/dogma-policing" at Protestant Churches - even to this day.

    Therefore, with unresolvable/unexplainable/inexcusable issues regarding,
    -Historic/Credibility gaps - especially those affiliated with Judaism (just too many)
    -Sunday Worship (via Roman Emperor IRCC - to literally worship on that day)
    -Dates/events of Easter and other holidays (elements of Winter Solstice, Human Sacrifice (Tree, Wafer, and Wine) and Vernal Equinox/Goddess Ishtar/Fertility festivals)

    it would appear that Christianity is an attempt by religious amalgamists of the queen of heaven/virgin-mother/birth "groups" of the day to embrace and absorb - nah - hijack Judaism. IIRC, early Christians weren't regarded well within the Rome (being unethical and lawless) until Constantine converted himself and everyone in the Empire.

    Calculating days appear to make the process more complicated that it should be. The fact that the "Roman" Easter is weeks apart from Passover is in itself a gross conceptual error of the supposed premise of their religion, which demonstrates an absolute lack of integrity on their part.

    Of course, as it was back then, quoting "Make Disciples of the World" while practicing "Convert or Die/Perish/Be suppressed" still seems to be an unchanging M.O. A "Big Brother" of a Beast indeed. (pun fully intended).

    The Bottom Line: Easter is a Spring festival with an added bonus of a call for World Domination - if not politically, then by force. If not successful by force, then by cultural pressure (e.g., Christmas celebrated in non-Christian Countries, like Japan).

    Just letting Jews and non-Jews thank (or not to thank) the Creator for the "Big Bang" and all what living on this world provides just seems too easy, I guess.

    So much meddling - time to free the people!!

    Season's Greetings

  86. Re:It's not even accurate ... by Xocet_00 · · Score: 1

    RAmen to that!

  87. Not out of his ass by Cathbard · · Score: 1

    The sun rises in a different place on the horizon every day due to the tilt of the earth. The date of Xmas is when that location makes it's first percievable change back in the other direction from the extremity of the winter. It was when Sol Invictus (the state religion of Rome at the time when the council of Nicae first drafted the bible) celebrated the rebirth of the sun and the beginning of the end of winter. It has nothing to do with christianity except for the politics of keeping the festival days intact so the transition to christianity could be accomplished with more ease.

    --
    "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
  88. Virgin Birth by Khomar · · Score: 2, Informative

    The virgin birth was/is an essential part of the Messianic prophecies of the Jewish people. It derives from Isaiah 7:14:

    "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.


    This passage has been dated to a date prior to the death of Christ in the Dead Sea Scrolls -- somewhere between 335 and 107 BC. So the idea of a virgin birth was well established long before Jesus' actual birth as are many of the miracles that Jesus performed. In fact, if you study the history of the time you will find that there were many others who claimed to be the Messiah and fulfill various prophecies including King Herod himself (the king who killed all of the male babies in Bethlehem in an attempt to end Jesus' life). According to the gospels in the New Testament, Jesus has fulfilled nearly every Messianic prophecy -- far more than any other figure in history.


    The only prophecy Jesus has yet to fulfill is the establishment of an eternal government of peace and holiness which Christians believe will occur at his second coming. The fact that he did not fulfill this prophecy is one of the primary reasons that Jews of that day and even today rejected Jesus as their Messiah.


    There is a lot more information here to cover than I can possibly relate in a Slashdot post, but there is far, far more to Biblical and Messianic prophecies that you realize. Each miraculous act and many of the statements attributed to Jesus in the New Testament are loaded with meaning and significance to people who understand the Old Testament -- most clearly in the book of Isaiah.

    --

    I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

  89. Re:It's not even accurate ... by n6kuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > ...same-sex activity is normal for many mammals,
    > contrary to the ignorant ramblings preached from pulpits every weekend.

    You fail Critical Thinking 101.
    You can't get an "ought" from an "is". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
    The fact that certain behaviors among animals can be observed in nature doesn't imply any moral (or amoral) imperative among humans. There are lots of things animals do that no one would consider OK for humans to do.

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  90. Re:And the first scientists were monks because . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because somebody is intelligent doesn't mean they're wise.

    Alternately: just because somebody is intelligent means they can overcome the programming they received during their youth.

  91. hereditary title by Cathbard · · Score: 1

    It was a way to eliminate hereditary title surely. After all, the christians were a cult following somebody they claimed that existed and who was the king of the jews. The king of the jews meant he was next in line to the thrown of David. They were trying to sell this to the romans remember. How far do you think they would have got if they said it was a bout the rightful king via succession to a thrown that had been usurped by the Roman Empire? Far better to say that his father was not Joseph who was from the line of David but rather the creator of the universe instead. Imagine if they'd said instead "Come follow the rightful king that wanted to kick the Romans out of Palestine". Wouldn't it have been easier to just jump into the ring with the lions voluntarily and cut out the middle man?

    --
    "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
  92. Re:It's not even accurate ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Actually, you're the one who fails basic science as well as critical thinking. Humans are mammals.

    You also take what YOU think "ought to be human morality" and you try to impose that value judgment contrary to what actually is. Science doesn't make moral judgments - it makes observations. Fundies seeking to impose their morality on others are the judgmental ones, and as such, deserve condemnation for their "magnificent hypocrisy".

    Besides, last I looked, humans have been more "creative" about cruelty than most other mammals.

    If you want to make a moral judgment, try this one on for size - the reason we're at the top of the food chain is because as a species we're the meanest, cruelest, least civilized, most amoral and dangerous animal in the world today. I can't think of one animal that comes anywhere near as close to the panalopy of cruelty and sheer inhumanity of humans - and a LOT of that was done "in the name of god." Just read the accounts of genocide that "god commanded" in the bible.

  93. Why not be honest... by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    and have it on whatever day Astara is? Since Easter is yet another holiday stolen from the pagans they hate so much.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  94. The Sunday after the full moon after Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no calculation. Easter comes on Sunday on the First Full Moon after Spring.

    So this year, Spring was Thursday the 20th of Marh, and the Full Moon was Friday the 21st of March. It doesn't come any closer than that.

  95. Re:Why would by Sandbags · · Score: 1

    Except that most religious events are not in fact celebrated because of of the religious holiday. Almost every single event celebrated today was done so due to seasonal activity revolving around the planting or harvesting work. The churches assimilated various celebratory activites that were already in practice long before the church came to town.

    People already had celebrations frequently, and for a variety of reasons. These celebrations peaked when work peaked (spring and fall) and the timing of most of these events was typically based around the lunar schedule, first thaw, first frost, solstice, etc. When the church wanted to interest new cultures, they did so generally through celebration, and denoted their own holidays, found similarities of one cultures pratcies to a religios event, and then created the holiday. After a hundred years of practicing the holiday on the day of a particular festival, it simply became known by the name the church provided for it, especially if a large portion of the population had converted.

    I would bother to link you to articles about St Valentine, Ishtar (Easter), All Hallows, Yule, St Patrics Day (Spring equinox, AKA rebirth of trees, AKA celebration of all things green) Mother's and Father's Day, Beltane (May Day), and even thanksgiving (the practice and seasonal timing, not necessarily the American reasonings behind the current celebrated date for it) as all being Pagan holidays overtaken by the church, but then, that's what search engines are for...

    Even the fact that you go to church on Sundays was an attempt in 321CE when Pope Constantine ordered worship services moved from the Sabbath on Saturday to Sunday so that the pagan ritual of worshiping the Sun God at dawn would be replaced by other practices. He even made it punishable by death 11 years later to worship God on a Saturday to enforce the idea of making Sunday the standard day and thus force pagans to choose one god over the other (since they would not be able to worship both at the same time or same pace).

    Check this out, even Christmas Day, December 25th, birthday of Jesus, was placed as the day after the solstice, the first day of the year that began to get longer, grow in light, and hence the birthday celebration for the Sun God since in the original calendar that date was penned by the Cristian church, the 24th was actually the 22nd, the solstice being the 21st.

    --
    There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
  96. Genious savant.. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think that is the expression.

    There are people that can draw very rational conclusions in one field while being completely irrational in the greater scheme of things.

    That would apply to all Christian Scientists in my opinion (it is unfair to bag Copernicus and other older thinkers there, back in those times you could be punished if you did not adhere to your local religious orthodoxy, so it is not like thay had any choice).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Genious savant.. by psychodelicacy · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "idiots savants" or just "savants".

      Admittedly Copernicus is the odd man out there, though note that he was actually a priest, which is a step beyond adhering to Christianity because you have to. It's dangerous to assume that a medieval person was only a Christian because they had to be, even if it makes you feel better about some famous scientific figures of the past. Christianity was an absolutely monolithic force in society, and it's more likely that any given person believed in it than not.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  97. Don't tell Zeller by Dark$ide · · Score: 1

    Zeller's Congruence has been around for many years. I have a perl program that implements it. Calculating Easter (Western) isn't rocket science.

    --

    Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

  98. More responses for the creationist by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
    Continued from here:

    There is a macro verses micro evolution. It is defined by people who claim part of evolution is real and part of it is some fairy tale cooked up in your head.

    Those who belong to the latter are anti-scientists who seek to replace science with religion.

    And the onus isn't on me showing something preventing it, it is on you to prove that evolution can create enough changes over time to stop a species from being itself and taking on another altogether.

    Which has already been demonstrated. See the fruit fly experiment where a population of fruit flies is split in two, and after a while they stop being able to interbreed. Speciation has taken place. You also have Nylonase, where a completely new enzyme/protein has been formed in the last few decades, and if there is no limit to how proteins can change there is no limit to how the organism itself can change. You can also observe for example domestic breeding of dogs, where huge differences in both appearance and functionality (sense of smell, hearing, etc.) have arisen by artificial selection.

    I notice that you still can't point to the specific barrier which prevents small changes from resulting in large changes over time. That's because you are willfully ignorant, and ignore all facts that don't match your religion.

    So far, all the evidence pointing to that ability is circumstantial at best and most a product of thought.

    Wrong. It is only you who are either ignorant or even willfully ignorant on the matter, YEC.

    It is sad that you had to hijack another thread in order to press your opinions onto other people.

    That's because Slashdot blocks replies after a while, and I'm not going to let you get away with lying and willfully ignoring facts.

    Pick a story and stick with it.

    I did. DNA evidence shows that we and Neanderthals share a common ancestor rather than being on the same branch.

    You are adding to what those respected researchers claim and twisting the stuff around in the same ways you claim creationists are doing.

    No, I am pointing out the fact that actual scientists show YECs to be wrong.

    you didn't do any of the research either

    I don't need to since real scientists are doing it already.

    There are some creationist who do the research and publish in the same peer reviewed journals.

    Show me one single example of that. Show me one single piece of new, original research by creationists published in an actual scientific journal. AiG's circle-jerk "publication" doesn't count.

    I'm not promoting anything

    You are. You are promoting pseudoscience.

    You have seem to of taken science and turned it into a pseudo-religion.

    No, I have pointed out that you are promoting pseudoscience and willfully ignoring facts that do not match your religion. Just because I give you shit over being an ignorant moron doesn't make the actual science behind the fact that evolution, micro or macro, any less scientific.

    evolution in the context of the dispute between religion and science (macro evolution) isn't fact, it is an educated guess.

    Wrong. An "educated guess" is called "hypothesis" in science. Evolution (macro or micro) is not a hypothesis, but a scientific theory. Educate yourself: "In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ulti

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
    1. Re:More responses for the creationist by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      Are you really that slow that you need to drag comments from one story to another? Surely you don't take that much time to process something as simple as what I have stated. Well, then again, I have read your posts.

      Those who belong to the latter are anti-scientists who seek to replace science with religion.

      No, they are separating the parts that they can agree on and the part that they can't. Science isn't an all or nothing prospect. Especially when a good portion of the all is conjecture based on a good argument about the little we do know. You aren't defending a religion here so I suggest you stop acting like it.

      Which has already been demonstrated. See the fruit fly experiment where a population of fruit flies is split in two, and after a while they stop being able to interbreed. Speciation has taken place. You also have Nylonase, where a completely new enzyme/protein has been formed in the last few decades, and if there is no limit to how proteins can change there is no limit to how the organism itself can change. You can also observe for example domestic breeding of dogs, where huge differences in both appearance and functionality (sense of smell, hearing, etc.) have arisen by artificial selection.

      Lol.. They weren't incapable of interbreeding, they didn't chose to. They have been made to breed in the labs. I suspect that is why you threw something out with no link.

      And then there is the Oh geeze, they don't by definition look like what was so they are new and different single celled organism.

      And finally we have dogs. Something that has artificially been manipulated on purpose for years but in the end they are still dogs. Not mecats or some other new species but dogs. And this is the reason for the differences between micro and macro evolution.

      I notice that you still can't point to the specific barrier which prevents small changes from resulting in large changes over time. That's because you are willfully ignorant, and ignore all facts that don't match your religion.

      Dude, if your going to sit on your hands for weeks at a time then hijack another thread to troll, at least pay attention to the arguments so you don't look like an ass. No one ever said there was a barrier which prevents small changes from adding up to a large set of changes. What was said was that a monkey will always be a monkey, a human will always be a human a dog will always be a dog. Now pay attention.

      Wrong. It is only you who are either ignorant or even willfully ignorant on the matter, YEC.

      I have asked you for this evidence about five times now. You haven't been able to provide anything that wasn't circumstantial at best. That is because it doesn't exist and you know it. It is also the reason why you seem to want to ignore the macro verses micro argument, because you know the evidence you can lay hands on doesn't cross that line. How does it feel when you can't prove your religion? You are treating this as a religion aren't you.

      at's because Slashdot blocks replies after a while, and I'm not going to let you get away with lying and willfully ignoring facts.

      Then get off your ass and respond in a timely manor. What are you doing learning this stuff as you go? You really should just go troll somewhere else.

      I did. DNA evidence shows that we and Neanderthals share a common ancestor rather than being on the same branch.

      And I posted a link calling your DNA hogwash. This has been a point of conjecture for many years in science and you are on the loosing side of things.

      You are. You are promoting pseudoscience.

      Lol.. Go back and read it again. I may have answered your charges but I am not promoting anything. And don't take another 2 weeks to process the post and respond.

      No, I have pointe

    2. Re:More responses for the creationist by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wow!

      You really truly are some dumbass aren't you!

      There is an excellent chance that your twisted religious beliefs exist purely due to being born into it ... and you can't see that those beliefs are just as false as every other religion that has existed throughout our species existance. It's a very self-centered and ignorant point of view to think that jesus is worth worshipping anymore than the THOUSANDS of different gods that were worshipped by your ancestors.

      You're actually very close to reforming, to becoming an atheist as you should. ... you only have to stop believing in one more god.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    3. Re:More responses for the creationist by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. OK troll. What religious beliefs did I spout there? Common, yu have the power of the post just like anyone else. Put up or shut up.

      You see, You think I am stupid and your the one implying things that have never been said. How dumb are you in comparison? Good job there buddy.

    4. Re:More responses for the creationist by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Are you claiming that you are not religious? That you are an atheist?

      Are you claiming that you are not a creationist?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    5. Re:More responses for the creationist by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Surely you don't take that much time to process something as simple as what I have stated.

      Of course not. I simply don't visit Slashdot every day (or every week).

      No, they are separating the parts that they can agree on and the part that they can't.

      False. Organization like AiG have a stated purpose of replacing science with religion.

      They weren't incapable of interbreeding, they didn't chose to.

      False.

      Something that has artificially been manipulated on purpose for years but in the end they are still dogs.

      Are a wolf and a poodle both dogs? It is a matter of definition. These definitions are abritrary, and often discussed at great length in the scientific community. Also, dogs have been bred in a way that does not prevent interbreeding, but if a poodle and a wolf were unable to interbreed, you would have two vastly different organisms that are also different species.

      No one ever said there was a barrier which prevents small changes from adding up to a large set of changes. What was said was that a monkey will always be a monkey, a human will always be a human a dog will always be a dog.

      In other words: You are saying that small changes over time to not result in major changes. Again, please point to the barrier which prevents this from happening.

      I have asked you for this evidence about five times now. You haven't been able to provide anything that wasn't circumstantial at best.

      False. You are simply ignoring all evidence that does not match your superstition.

      How does it feel when you can't prove your religion?

      It is not a religion, and I don't have to prove it. I have pointed you to scientific evidence. Whether I am religious or not does not affect the reliability of this scientific evidence.

      And I posted a link calling your DNA hogwash.

      What link was that? The link that also stated that DNA is useless and cannot be used in court cases because it doesn't prove anything?

      This has been a point of conjecture for many years in science and you are on the loosing side of things.

      What has been a point of conjecture, and who is on the "winning" side? AiG? :D

      What facts? You haven't brought any about that solve the macro verses micro thing.

      I have pointed to speciation and no limit to how an organism can change, as well as links to sites like talkorigins.org that explain all of this. It is you who choose to ignore the evidence.

      A theory is an attempt to explain facts or observation but is never a fact or law.

      A theory explains and takes all known facts into account. I also explained that, indeed, it does not become fact or law.

      In biological evolution, a lot of jumps are made.

      False.

      Nothing, I repeat nothing- and you cannot show anything, that was created specifically because of the portions of evolution that is in conflict.

      What are you talking about? Created? Huh?

      There is no conflict here. Not among scientists. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that evolution is indeed correct. There is no conflict in the scientific communnity.

      And without empirical evidence, you cannot say that you are not wrong about anything.

      Without empirical evidence? Are you so thick that even now, you cannot remember the observed speciation instances and Nylonase?

      The judge in the case you keep quoting doesn't make any determination about Science.

      He does indeed. He ruled that ID is religion, and evolution is science. Just like scientists have been pointing out all along.

      You do

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    6. Re:More responses for the creationist by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Are you claiming that you are not religious? That you are an atheist?
      Actually, I didn't make any claims of my spirituality. If I had to I would claim that I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in a god or organized religion but would be open to the topic is enough compelling evidence was shown to exist.

      However, I am not anti religion as most atheist attempt to be. Spirituality and theological thought is a personal thing and we have to respect someone's choice to do this however they choose as long as it doesn't directly harm others.

      Are you claiming that you are not a creationist?
      Yes, I am claiming I am not a creationist. However, when you get to the meat of the differences between creation and evolution, they are so small and in the unprovable parts of each that it is more or less a pissing match between what indicators tend to lend credence to each.

      I think Evolution is the most likely candidate for development but unlike most, I think the bubble theory of evolution is probably the more sound of the theories that have made it's rounds. If you don't know what that is, it is where each and every creature gained it's personal characteristic back when the primordial soup was cranking out life. The differences in the creatures are much like the differences in the chemical composition of the bubbly foam washing ashore by the ocean (where it grabbed it's name). The point of it is that life has always been the same life and the common descent other theories purpose is more or less close relatives in the soup. But evolution has allowed a species to move from single celled entities to what we see today.

      In other words, A dog has always been a dog even though it looks like 3 hundred different animals. A horse has always been a horse and so on. The so called transition fossils we see are more or less early versions of existing animals respectively and not extinct cousins of a different or parent species.
    7. Re:More responses for the creationist by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Of course not. I simply don't visit Slashdot every day (or every week).

      Then you should resign to not posting. hijacking other threads is annoying.

      False. Organization like AiG have a stated purpose of replacing science with religion.

      And AiG represent every single creationist who have no choice but to follow what AiG states as it's goal? Are you that naive that you can think something like that? I am false because you think your right based of a small sample of people? Wow. Your really scientific there. Do you actually understand what your arguing?

      False. [talkorigins.org]

      Nice, You give me shit for posting a link to a creationist website that cited existing scientific articles and you decide to post a link to a rabid anti creation site that basicaly says speciation is now possible because we changed the definition of species to not wanting to interbreed instead of unable to interbreed. And you think this is appropriate even after four or five posts of you demanding that micro and macro evolution doesn't exist because it is a new definition used to pick apart a species change. Your on a roll here.

      Are a wolf and a poodle both dogs? It is a matter of definition. These definitions are abritrary, and often discussed at great length in the scientific community. Also, dogs have been bred in a way that does not prevent interbreeding, but if a poodle and a wolf were unable to interbreed, you would have two vastly different organisms that are also different species.

      Yes, change the definitions and you can have anything you claim. I get it. It doesn't matter to you as long as you can say your right. But can a wolf and a poodle interbreed? If you say no, then your wrong which means they are the same species even though the definition calls them different.

      In other words: You are saying that small changes over time to not result in major changes. Again, please point to the barrier which prevents this from happening.

      No, No, NO. How fucking ignorant are you? I didn't "basically say" anything other then what I said. I specifically said there is no barrier to small changes adding up to large changes. I said that the major changes don't create new species. They are the same species they always where. And interbreeding with fertile offspring shows that.

      I don't understand why you are constantly ignoring what I said and repositioning your own words in place of mine in order to create an artificial context. Did someone tell you that it made you look smart or something to do that?

      False. You are simply ignoring all evidence that does not match your superstition.

      Wrong, I am simply not attaching extended meanings to information where there is little evidence to support it other then it helps you in another position. This has little to do with any of my superstitions and a lot more to do with you bending information to fit your beliefs.

      It is not a religion, and I don't have to prove it. I have pointed you to scientific evidence. Whether I am religious or not does not affect the reliability of this scientific evidence.

      Your sure as hell acting like it is a religion. and yes, your religios views on this seem to be placing importance in areas that is none and is forcing you to demand things that don't exist. YOu are letting your religious belief in this to direct your entire interpretation of the situation. This includes you incorrectly naming me as a creationist and demanding that some court in Pennsylvanian meant something to me.

      hat link was that? The link that also stated that DNA is useless and cannot be used in court cases because it doesn't prove anything?

      I suggest you go back and look for it. Maybe you will learn something like that you are the one who broug

    8. Re:More responses for the creationist by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am claiming I am not a creationist.
      Then why do you reject (macro)evolution?

      when you get to the meat of the differences between creation and evolution, they are so small and in the unprovable parts of each that it is more or less a pissing match between what indicators tend to lend credence to each
      This is of course false because evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists, and is, unlike creationism, actual science.

      The point of it is that life has always been the same life
      So a cat just magically popped out of a bubble?

      Is this the bubble theory you are referring to? It says nothing about fully formed animals magically popping out of nowhere. In fact, it deals with how the first cells came to be.

      The so called transition fossils we see are more or less early versions of existing animals respectively and not extinct cousins of a different or parent species.
      What do you base that claim on? How would you explain Tiktaalik? How would you explain what scientists say?
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    9. Re:More responses for the creationist by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Then why do you reject (macro)evolution?

      I don't reject is. I just don't see the evidence saying it is fact. Being objective in science is one of the most important things there is about science. Insisting that macro evolution happens when the best we have is interpretations from the fossil record and maybe transitional fossils which could also simply be transitional fossils of an existing creature isn't science. You have to let the evidence speak for itself which in this case, nothing is proven but likely.

      I see it as the week link that hasn't been observed directly. The only reason it is on the radar is because people have changed definitions of speciation in order to include past experiments and situations that haven't previously been included. The talk origins site you like to reference actually suggested that geographical isolation is enough to consider speciation which would effectively make a basset hound in Germany a different species then a basset hound in New York city. And the geographical isolation can even be in the same state with a mountain or pond separating them. 20 years ago, the criteria was couldn't interbreed. Not it is don't choose to interbreed.

      This is of course false because evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists, and is, unlike creationism, actual science.

      I have this sneaking suspicion that you have no clue whatsoever what the differences between creation and evolution is. First, being accepted by a group of people doesn't make anything more correct then something else. So lets look at this, What in evolution that is in conflict with creation do scientist say is true compared to creationist claiming isn't. I want specifics and not this blanket statement about evolution because you know as well as I do that there are a lot of complicated parts making the theory up. And if you don't know that, you should just shut up about it until you do. I have a strong feeling that you have no idea what the points of contention are here.

      So a cat just magically popped out of a bubble?

      More or less. Except it didn't look like a cat.

      Is this the bubble theory you are referring to? It says nothing about fully formed animals magically popping out of nowhere. In fact, it deals with how the first cells came to be.

      Sort of. It is how it got the name. It more or less posits that the Darwinian evolution or common descent happened at this time. The biologist John Desmond Bernal, posited that there where 3 stages to Biopoesis (which is currently referred to by abiogenesis). He noted that the Darwinian evolution may have commenced early, some time between Stage 1 and 2 of a three stage process which is

      • Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
      • Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
      • Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell

      You would still have the observable evolution as in adaptation and growth but you wouldn't continue to have a common descent once once the cell was organized.

      What do you base that claim on? How would you explain Tiktaalik? How would you explain what scientists say?

      I explained the basis in the above point. We have gone through this Tiktaalik in another post here you conveniently forget everything I have said. Remember I told you to look into the frogfish? As for what scientist say, well how do you explain what scientist say? I mean I looking directly as science too. Granted a little outdated But nothing has been proven wrong. As for what they say, from a loaded and biased site, I would say they can be wrong. A transitional fossil is only an earlier version of another animal currently in existence. It is proof that something looked a certain way at a certain stratification layer but it is still a guess for the most part as to what it is related to, and how the relation exists. Look at the

    10. Re:More responses for the creationist by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      I don't reject is.

      What is the alternative?

      I just don't see the evidence saying it is fact.

      Evolution is a theory. A theory is supported by facts (and explains them).

      Insisting that macro evolution happens when the best we have is interpretations from the fossil record and maybe transitional fossils which could also simply be transitional fossils of an existing creature isn't science.

      So you believe that the fossil record is all there is? What about evidence from comparative anatomy? Evidence from geographical distribution? Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry? Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance? Evidence from studies of complex iteration? Evidence from speciation? (You could have looked this up for yourself to get the point.)

      I have this sneaking suspicion that you have no clue whatsoever what the differences between creation and evolution is.

      The difference is that evolution is actual science, while creationism is religion. Creationism is useless, and explains nothing. All creationism is, is an attempt to make the terrain match a pre-defined map.

      First, being accepted by a group of people doesn't make anything more correct then something else.

      In this case it does, because this group of people happens to be just about all scientists. You know, the people doing the actual science.

      What in evolution that is in conflict with creation do scientist say is true compared to creationist claiming isn't.

      For example, your claim that Tiktaalik isn't a transitional fossil. For example, the claim that the fossil record is not evidence of common descent at all.

      More or less. Except it didn't look like a cat.

      What did it look like? A small, primitive cat-like creature appeared magically? Please point me to actual scientists who believe this to be the case.

      You would still have the observable evolution as in adaptation and growth but you wouldn't continue to have a common descent once once the cell was organized.

      So are you talking about a completely formed creature popping out of nowhere, or are you talking about each line of creatures having origins in cells forming at different times (in other words, you still have "macroevolution" despite your claim that it couldn't be because of the bubble theory)?

      We have gone through this Tiktaalik in another post here you conveniently forget everything I have said. Remember I told you to look into the frogfish?

      What about the frogfish? And what about the fact that Tiiktalik was discovered because its location was predicted based on "macroevolution"?

      As for what scientist say, well how do you explain what scientist say? I mean I looking directly as science too. Granted a little outdated But nothing has been proven wrong.

      How do I explain what scientists say? I don't have to explain what scientists say, because I am simply referring to what they are saying. What is outdated?

      A transitional fossil is only an earlier version of another animal currently in existence.

      What do you base this claim on? It seems like an extremely unscientific claim which ignores the evidence. For example, "the horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) that appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence" (TalkOrigins). How can you make the absolute claim that all transitional fossils are in fact not transitional?

      Look at the equine lineage and you can see a this in progress. A horse is a horse is a horse of course, you could say.

      That image would be accompanied by the text: "The earliest animal to bear recognizably horse-like anatomy was the Hyracotherium."

      It should also be pointed out that des

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    11. Re:More responses for the creationist by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What is the alternative?

      Why does there have to be an alternative? This isn't a take it and worship it or leave situation. There is nothing wrong with looking at the situation and seeing what is supported by hard evidence and what is weak. There is nothing saying that you can't entertain or explore other avenues. Science doesn't get jealous when you do that. In fact, science sort of requires you to do that. Summarily rejecting anything because you have some belief in science is a bit troubling.

      Evolution is a theory. A theory is supported by facts (and explains them)

      Your attempting to put to much emphasis on a theory and fact in the theory of evolution. A theory is an attempt to explain facts but there are theories (actually hypothesis) that have so little supporting evidence but have been in place so long that they get called a theory. In either case, the "theory of evolution" is actually an enveloping theory that contains a bunch of theories and hypotheses. Some of the facts directly correlate to facts and observations and some barrow facts from sibling observations in order to align themselves with a competing theory. When you look at the specific make up of it, you actually find very strong and very weak arguments all through it.

      Take something like common descent which is a theory inside the theory of evolution, that is not a fact, we haven't observed it. We don't have a complete DNA sequence that 100% proved it happened. In fact, it is more like a hypothesis because we can't really test it. We have an interpretation of fossil records, predictive stratification and more recently a partial DNA as facts to an existing theory. And with the idea of "design by function" verses "relative variances" in DNA, the DNA evidence isn't as strong as people want to claim. In fact, it is almost as broad as the other evidence supporting it. So when someone says something else happened, then look at it. If it makes more or less sense, act appropriately.

      So you believe that the fossil record is all there is? What about evidence from comparative anatomy? Evidence from geographical distribution? Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry? Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance? Evidence from studies of complex iteration? Evidence from speciation? (You could have looked this up for yourself to get the point.)

      There are certain known knowns, certain unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns. What this means is that there are certain prerequisites for life, There are certain prerequisites for functions of life. There are certain prerequisites for life to exist in specific areas. The giant tube worms of the deep ocean sort of show this to an extreme. No mouth, no digestive track, they couldn't eat if they tried. Yet they are able to survive in unconventional manors. Now, because they can exist, it allows for more conventional marine life to exist in areas that life shouldn't.

      Now, all of what your yapping about, except the so called evidence of speciation, can be explained to some degree by necessities of life and certain conditions in it. The speciation isn't speciation unless you bend some rules. I have a big problem with changing the rules and definitions in order to make a statement that wasn't true, true. Science doesn't do that. Suppose that we change the speed of light to a different value just to validate one of Einstein's theories. You wouldn't think the theory is any more true now would you?

      The difference is that evolution is actual science, while creationism is religion. Creationism is useless, and explains nothing. All creationism is, is an attempt to make the terrain match a pre-defined map.

      No. That isn't the difference. That is the difference between your religion and theirs. Science doesn't automagically reject statements because of it's origin. It doesn't automagically place weight on something above others

    12. Re:More responses for the creationist by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      In fact, science sort of requires you to do that.

      It's interesting, then, that you are at odds with the entire scientific community.

      A theory is an attempt to explain facts but there are theories (actually hypothesis) that have so little supporting evidence but have been in place so long that they get called a theory.

      Evolution is not one of them, since it has huge amounts of supporting evidence.

      Take something like common descent which is a theory inside the theory of evolution, that is not a fact, we haven't observed it.

      We have huge amounts of evidence, including speciation, observations of new proteins/enzymes forming in the last few decades alone (Nylonase), domestic breeding which causes huge differences in form and functionality (various plants, dogs, etc.), and so on.

      Now, all of what your yapping about, except the so called evidence of speciation, can be explained to some degree by necessities of life and certain conditions in it.

      Except they all conveniently support... evolution!

      The speciation isn't speciation unless you bend some rules.

      No rules need to be bent. Read the information I have provided you with.

      Suppose that we change the speed of light to a different value just to validate one of Einstein's theories. You wouldn't think the theory is any more true now would you?

      Except the speed of light is not a matter of definition, unlike "species". Scientists have heated debates over what to call new discoveries. It is not always clear which species they belong to because of the gradual changes over millions of years. These definitions are arbitrary and depend on our knowledge at the time.

      Science doesn't automagically reject statements because of it's origin. It doesn't automagically place weight on something above others because of where it comes from.

      Except I specifically pointed out that creationism is bogus because it makes bogus statements. You are trying to use a straw man argument.

      A good portion of the science you hold so valuable was created by the churches- even in biology.

      So what? Again, this is a straw man. I never said that religious people can't do science. One of my favourite scientists is biologist Ken Miller, and he is a christian.

      Now I ask you again, do you even remotely know what creation and science are at odd with here?

      Yes. Creationism tries to make the terrain fit the map, and to circumvent the scientific process.

      No, it doesn't. Anything could come along at any time and be more correct then the current theory and it doesn't matter where it comes from.

      That's not the point. The point is that the scientific community fully supports evolution. The people who actually do scientific work accept evolution.

      All evidence for common descent in the fossil record in interpreted. It could just as well be an early version of an existing creature.

      Except when the creature is found exactly where one would expect it to be if evolution is true. And it was. And it fit the "puzzle" exactly the way scientists expected. I think actual scientists are slightly more qualified to determine what kind of creature Tiktaalik was than you.

      What about the frog fish? it shared 90% of the same characteristics that the claims of Tiiktalik being a transitional fossil.

      Really? What, specifically?

      It looked like a fucking cell with specific genetic information that over time grew into what you would call a cat today.

      In other words: You contradict yourself and accept evolution. You accept that a single cell can evolve into a multi-celled organism. You accept that it can change massively over time. Just the other day you refused, and

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    13. Re:More responses for the creationist by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It's interesting, then, that you are at odds with the entire scientific community.

      No, I may be at odds with you and your group of friends but the very definition of science allows for the investigation into any claim. You can think of any claim as a hypothesis. You don't shut everything else out once you think you know the answer. Science would be frozen in time and we would learn nothing more if we did that. The entire scientific community does not think science has learn all there is to know about any subject.

      Evolution is not one of them, since it has huge amounts of supporting evidence.

      You post links to the definition of a theory but you fail to understand them. You also fail to understand the argument in front of you. The theory of evolution contain many theories and hypothesis, facts and observations. The points of contention aren't in the facts but with the explanations of the facts. And to that point, only a very small portion of the more weakly supported observations. Evolution as in the enveloping theory of evolution has a lot of strong evidence backing it. But the individual theories and hypothesis within the theory of evolution don't always have the same strength. Some are more strong and some or weaker. For some reason your saying that an overall theory in evolutionary biology encompasses so much and the support in one area seems to be proof in another. You do understand that the theory of evolution is an envelope pertaining to many different studies each with it's own theories and hypothesis right? Look at what talk origins has to say about it. Make sure your looking at the "Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved." part to see what is meant.

      We have huge amounts of evidence, including speciation, observations of new proteins/enzymes forming in the last few decades alone (Nylonase), domestic breeding which causes huge differences in form and functionality (various plants, dogs, etc.), and so on. The only evidence of speciation we have is where the definition of species has been changed or where the definition doesn't quite fit like with singly celled organisms and asexual organisms. 20 years ago, the definition of speciation was that it "couldn't" interbreed (I've seen this definition in common use as recently as a few years ago). Not that it "chooses" not to or is isolated by some land mark. In striking contrast, about every racist who refuses to mate with a different race would now be considered a new species and a sheep dog in Australia which looks different then an English sheep dog would be separate species. Then you have ring species and all that to complicate things even more.

      Except they all conveniently support... evolution!

      Nobody said they didn't support evolution, I said that the connections speciation could have an alternate explanation. You really, really, really, have to start paying attention. Please let me explain that statement for you. You can use "evolution" to explain everything without "speciation" when looking into that evidence.

      No rules need to be bent. Read the information I have provided you with.

      Yes, they have been bent. The definitions of speciation have been changed. The rules for speciation have been changed. A definition of species, for sexual creatures anyways, deals with the ability to interbreed. The definition for speciation, for sexual organism/creatures, has went from being able to interbreed to don't willingly or cant because of some geographical separation. In fact, subspecies and race of species now get coined as speciation due to the changes.

      Except the speed of light is not a matter of definition, unlike "species". Scientists have heated debates over what to call new discoveries. It is not always clear which species they belong to because of

    14. Re:More responses for the creationist by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      It seems that the only thing you are capable of is to constantly attack me for devastating your pathetic excuses for arguments. But that's OK because at least you'll get educated. You can keep pretending that the material on TalkOrigins isn't written by actual scientists, and that's OK too. You will hopefully read it anyway and get educated.

      But now you'll have to get back to the bubble theory that you are so fond of, and explain exactly how you think it works. Are you saying that all families of life on earth each originate from different cells that all came into existence separately through the mechanisms described in the bubble theory? If so, how exactly does the tree of life look? Did cats and dogs originate from the same bubble? Did cats and tigers? Cats and horses? What about blue whales and hippos?

      If all these things evolved separately, how do you explain that we share most of our DNA with mice? Did we originate from the same bubble as mice? What about chimps? Are we and chimps the same species? Or did they have their own bubble?

      By the way, actual speciation has been observed. Where interbreeding was no longer possible. Did you even read the stuff I told you about?

      Also, your explanation about the frogfish was pathetic at best. Be more specific.

      I also never said that the definition of species is useless. I said that the definitions are arbitrary, and often debated.

      Then you have ring species and all that to complicate things even more.
      Indeed, since you basically contradicted yourself there :)
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    15. Re:More responses for the creationist by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It seems that the only thing you are capable of is to constantly attack me for devastating your pathetic excuses for arguments. But that's OK because at least you'll get educated. You can keep pretending that the material on TalkOrigins isn't written by actual scientists, and that's OK too. You will hopefully read it anyway and get educated.

      Well, actually, I am consistently attacking you for insisting parts of an argument exists when it doesn't. You have consistently throughout our correspondence to inject things that where never said and attempt to press arguments that where never made. And in the process of doing so, you seem convinced on misconstruing the science you are hiding behind.

      As for talk origins, I was around when it was started, I participated on that site/newsgroup, it was started by an atheist, not a scientist, for the purpose of debunking creation not doing science. That is the only statement I have made about it. There might be scientists who frequent the site, they might participate there too. I have never said they haven't. They might even reference real scientific material in their articles, I have never said they didn't. The only think I have said was that the one site I linked to did the same thing and actually referenced the works they built that article from. If your going to give one credit, you need to give the other credit.

      But now you'll have to get back to the bubble theory that you are so fond of, and explain exactly how you think it works. Are you saying that all families of life on earth each originate from different cells that all came into existence separately through the mechanisms described in the bubble theory? If so, how exactly does the tree of life look? Did cats and dogs originate from the same bubble? Did cats and tigers? Cats and horses? What about blue whales and hippos?

      Actually, yes, that is the point of it. And the tree of life look like a pine telephone pole. There is one for each species that list each transition into the final animal as we see with small vines weaving in and out to account for breeds and subspecies. There actually isn't a tree of life for the bubble theory, mostly because you would need a tree for each species.

      And it is apparent that you still don't understand what has been put in front of you. Why would cats and lions originate from the same bubble when once life was created, it was always the same species? You are making the mistake of attempting to evaluate a claim based on your current beliefs- not the basis of the claim. Of course this isn't anything new with you.

      If all these things evolved separately, how do you explain that we share most of our DNA with mice? Did we originate from the same bubble as mice? What about chimps? Are we and chimps the same species? Or did they have their own bubble?

      It is simple, During abiogenesis, the chemical compounds that eventually created life varied slightly which gave us differing species. A good portion of DNA, is a design of function not uniqueness. When you see lungs, you will see a certain amount of Similar DNA. When you see fingers and fingernails instead of hooves, you will see a certain set of DNA. Each set will differ slightly and some will be broken into subgroups instead of specific strands. Some animals have extra and until we understand DNA better, we won't know to what degree of a role each bit plays in structuring animals in current life. Now punctuated equilibrium will also dictate that a certain portion of DNA changes will coincide across all life in an effected area that would either stay in the gene pool or not compared to any useful benefit that it may have. But under the same principle as genetic drift, these advantagous differences will spread to every other animal in the species.

      By the way, actual speciation has been observed. Where interbreeding was no longer possible. Did you even read the stuff I told you a

    16. Re:More responses for the creationist by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      As for talk origins, I was around when it was started, I participated on that site/newsgroup, it was started by an atheist, not a scientist, for the purpose of debunking creation not doing science
      The only reason you would say that, of course, is because you don't like what the scientists there are saying, so you simply reject it.

      Why would cats and lions originate from the same bubble when once life was created, it was always the same species?
      Ok, so cats and lions originated from different bubbles? Why do we place them in the same category, then?

      Did birds have their own bubble separat from dinosaurs, by the way?

      What about neanderthals and humans? Separate bubbles or same ancestor?

      What about horses and donkeys? Or tigers and lions? Are they from different bubbles? If yes, why can they create offspring together? If no, why is the offspring not fertile?

      It is simple, During abiogenesis, the chemical compounds that eventually created life varied slightly which gave us differing species. A good portion of DNA, is a design of function not uniqueness.
      And then, of course, the same things just happened to evolve a huge amount of times, by accident?

      What I don't get is why you act like a creationist first, and now you accept that life evolved from a single cell (or multiple single cells). It looks like you are constantly changing your story just to troll.

      Yes, I read it and no, it hasn't. You are taking it out of abstract and not noticing the changed definitions.
      False. No changed definitions are needed. We have observed that populations have diverged to a point where interbreeding was impossible. And no, I never said that the "rules" of a species (cannot interbreed with others) are arbitrary. I said that how we define specific forms of life is, because there are often gray areas, gradual transitions (transitional fossils), etc.

      I gave you enough that you can look the information up yourself.
      There was nothing there to support your claim, sorry. Be more specific. Don't bother with links, just explain it plainly and clearly.

      Arbitrary: pulled out of thin air with no specific meaning. Debated: people object to them. You claim that it is set in stone. My point stands.
      No, I never claimed that how an animal is defined is set in stone. The definition of new findings can be hotly debated, but that doesn't mean that it is pulled out of thing air. It is hotly debated specifically because there can be arguments both ways.

      No, because the definitions have been changed. A ring species is basically a set off animals that can interbreed but don't.
      False. A ring species is a number of populations that can interbreed with closely related populations, but there also exist more distant populations that cannot interbreed.
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    17. Re:More responses for the creationist by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The only reason you would say that, of course, is because you don't like what the scientists there are saying, so you simply reject it.

      No, I said it because it is true. Are you implying that we can't make factual statements about some point of origin or debate just because you seem to agree with the outcome? That sounds more like a religion then a science to me.

      Ok, so cats and lions originated from different bubbles? Why do we place them in the same category, then?

      Primarily for historical and convenience reasons from before we grasped the concept of abiogenesis. We still do take creatures that look similar and attempt to classify them in families just by looks and features alone until something point to it being incorrect. There has been a lot of pointing and corrections going on throughout the taxonomy study of biology. That is just a fact of the nature of the game which is inherent in the difficulties of not considering the degree of separation at the proper points.

      Did birds have their own bubble separat from dinosaurs, by the way?

      Why yes, they would. More specifically, each type or species of bird would have their own distinct bubble as would each type or species of dinosaur. But, as the bubbles form, they could be literally separated by less then an inch in either the process that created the monomers, polymers, or creation of the cell to which all biological function and traits would be potentially present minus future mutations that would happen to all the cells/lifeforms.

      What about neanderthals and humans? Separate bubbles or same ancestor?

      I think we have already discussed this. They are the same species. We have found evidence of them living with us, for longer then a few generations, breading with us, exchanging traits in fossils and so on. According to the definition of species, the ability to breed pretty much makes them the same species. What would have happened is that the modern DNA and genetic traits that are thought to be superior would have bleed the inferior traits out of the gene pole by means of normal evolution.

      What about horses and donkeys? Or tigers and lions? Are they from different bubbles? If yes, why can they create offspring together? If no, why is the offspring not fertile?

      Species and subspecies. But it shows some of the observable limitations of evolution- primarily speciation. You can pollute the gene pole just enough until it cannot substantiate further distribution.

      And then, of course, the same things just happened to evolve a huge amount of times, by accident?

      Why would it be by accident? It could be environmental effects and or catastrophes and so on. But even then it wouldn't be enough at one time or even over time to much more then create different looking creatures that still fit the definition of species.

      What I don't get is why you act like a creationist first, and now you accept that life evolved from a single cell (or multiple single cells). It looks like you are constantly changing your story just to troll.

      I _did_not_ act like a creationist first. That is specifically your own doing of transposing your ideology into my arguments. At best, you can claim that I am friendly to evolution because I have made statements of that it isn't an important enough disagreement to the normal persons lives to force on position over another. I think it isn't to overly complicated for someone to hold a spiritual belief in one hand, not that science says X and that you would need to apply X when involved with a specific field of science, in the other hand. I think a lot of the points of contention between the two stem from improperly trained science teachers actually making statements about religion or gods during their instruction of classes. I don't think that

  99. Easier Excel Calculation by Q-Branch · · Score: 1
    This works by taking advantage of some excel functions in a new way

    =FLOOR("5/"&DAY(MINUTE(C9/38)/2+56)&"/"&C9,7)-34

    1. Re:Easier Excel Calculation by Q-Branch · · Score: 1

      if I had thought about that for more than a split second, I would have realized that you need to know that "C9" in the above equation references a cell for the four digit year. Apologies all around.

  100. Re:Why would by swillden · · Score: 1

    a rational person care about calculating meaningless dates bounded by fairy tales except perhaps as a "Fun With Calendars" exercise ?

    Why do you need a reason other than a "Fun With Calendars" exercise?

    I'm a Christian, but as far as religious purposes go it really doesn't matter when it falls, and if I need to know for some reason I just look at the calendar on the wall.

    This article is all about the math and history of the thing, and the appeal to me is all about the geekiness of knowing obscure and complicated things.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.