User:Gilariverrider

Someone once said 'You edit, therefore you register.' Ok, fair enough since I have edited many pages over the years and, to my relief my additions to history have remained and for this I am thankful. It may be too that my citations will always carry directly to a source document (versus second or third hand citations from contemporary sources).

U.S. (first person) history is a passion; specifically that period following the ratification of the Constitution and the onset of Lincoln's War of Aggression. What is first person history? That which was written by the actors in the drama themselves - versus the sixth generation college professor who repeats what his college professor told him how it was (from which he read a book of yet another college professor). How does one study first person history? Books, very old books usually. Often these are written by folks we've never heard of. Sure there are the famous voices of history; but you learn a lot more from Thomas Hamilton speaking of Thomas Jefferson than you would from Jefferson himself. Usually.

This period of perhaps 65 years in the United States is of interest since it follows the establishment of a nation and, preceeds the first trial by fire of that new nation. What was left unfinished and, that which contributed to the War of Northern aggression. Yes, I have a bias against Mr. Lincoln - and every critic of GW Bush should share my point of view in this regards. Ponder this: Why exactly is Lincoln one of the heros of George Bush? What were Mr. Lincolns accomplishments and achievements that Mr. Bush admires so? Who is Professor Leo Strauss and why are his teachings so relevant to the past two decades of U.S. foreign policy?

Second century Christianity is my second passion. Again using the same first person means of study where possible and practical. Original texts are available in many cases and sheds a zeitgeist on the times, attitudes and flow of thought not available in publications of a later period of time.

It is exciting to fully understand the times of the early Christian church. It is even more fulfilling to discover the errors in interpretation, execution and teachings of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

There are two points of diversion from history regarding Christianity; that which occurred between 325CE and 400CE, and those which occurred during the great revival of Christianity in the U.S. in the later 19th and early 20th centuries.

Acta non verba is my cardinal law. Words have meanings and I do not suffer poor use nor clever dialectic. If you state a premise I expect a proper use of both cited facts and logic leading to a proper conclusion. For example, science is not by consensus (as many today seem to feel).

And that is another thought: Think, don't feel, I could care less about your feelings on a subject - I want to know what you think and what you can support.

Lastly, I maintain there is a difference between stupidity and ignorance; in regards to the later, you simply don't know what you don't know - as to the former, you don't care to learn what you don't know in spite of the best efforts of others.

That's good for now.