Okay, it is an old topic, but since it sometimes comes back to mind I felt like sharing it and see what you think/what responses I'd get. I am bothered by the fact that science has placed the Millennium date at January first 2001. Okay, it is a clear sign that I should 'get a life' but I guess putting it out here also acknowledges the fact that I am embracing myself with all my quirks and quacks. It is not that I múst place the Millennium date at January first 2000 to feel good, it is just not satisfying to think that scientists are not looking at this Millennium thing from the best scientific and most logical angle. This is my thought: the Christian calendar is based on the birth of Christ, and though from a scientific point of view most people agree that that wasn't December 25th, officially that is the date of his birth. The Millennium date should therefore be: December 25, 2000, not January first of 2000 nor January first of 2001. Subsequently, the Millennium year would be 2000 (because December 25th falls in that year) and the beginning of the Millennium year would then be January first 2000. The catholic church celebrated the 2000th year from December 25th 1999 to December 25th 2000. It appears that they were right on the mark. Celebrating my 45th years on this earth starts at my 44th birthday and ends on my 45th birthday. Believe it or not, but the official date of birth for Christ and the reason of the Christian calendar is December 25 of the year minus 1. Since officially there is no year zero (why not I wonder?) Christ was born before the calendar started that is based on his birth. Were scientists involved who disliked the idea of a year zero (while everyone I know had a first year in which we were zero years old). Or was it the church who wanted to put the Christ in a special spot and made him look different from other people by not have him be zero years old? Nevertheless, this doesn't change the Millennium date, because that would always be exactly a thousand-fold years after his birth. Yes, yes, I know: I should get a life, but what do you think is the best basis of logic to this Millennium question: go with the currently established scientific flow, go with the popular flow of seeing a date flip from 1999 to 2000 and celebrate that fact, or go with the flow that the calendar is based on an event that is and isn't the beginning of the calendar?