Good evening tonight, Dave! Dave Laird wrote to Lowell Savage...
Lowell wrote: > > I'm afraid I miss the allusion, here. I certainly agree that it is a bad > > idea to restrict the civil liberties of Muslims, but I'm not sure I > > understand what history you are referring to. To which, you replied: > That was inaccurately-written, but the fact remains, this country was > formulated on the basis of civil liberties for all. Read on, however, as I > admit once again, to committing a gaffe... Historically, I'm not so sure this country was formed that way or not, we still had this nasty institution of 'SLAVERY' to contend with, and which had never been settled either until about 100 years later! In principle however, you are right. On the basis of skin colour, or ethnic origin, I doubt it however. That all came into real focus, and as it is coming, later on into the 20th and 21st centuries! Savage continued to write: > > Uhm. Are you confusing Judaism with Islam? Mohammed didn't arrive on the > > scene until the 6th century, AD--approximately 6 centuries AFTER the > > events celebrated by Christmas. Again, I alluded earlier to the historical dates you seemed to have confused here, but again, this isn't apparently the real focus of that message, so I didn't bring it up at the time. You wrote: > Yes, that is an unconscionable gaffe that crept into the logic here. > However, the Christian faith we know today was not "invented" nor came to > life until the post-Reformation, which is an interesting fact. If we > compare Christianity 2000 years ago with today, or, in particular, if we > study Christianity in the pre-Reformation with Christianity as we know it > today, the two are shockingly dissimilar. As an ardent student of History, including Christian History, I have to take a rather strong objection to your vision of the Reformation period, and the Epilogue of Christianity dating from post reformation times. Actually, Christianity is identified entirely with Western History, and it began 2,000 years ago, and isn't easily bifracated in such a fashion, until you get to America, 1,500 years later. Actually, I will stand by what I write tonight, American-oriented Christianity is not, and does not represent Christianity in the historical sense at all. We seem to have a rather, self definition, or parochial and cultic appreciation for Christianity in America -- but at the same time, forget the rich history of Christianity for the last 2,000 years! You seem to leave out so very, very much here. Orthodox Christianity, in the East, and Western Catholism in the west, and the Luthern variant and opposition to corruption within the Church from earlier than 1500 AD. I'm not leaving out the Reformation period, but certainly will not even consider all of the rich and growth in the 'church' either in which history you seem to have labelled as not essential for understanding Christianity since the time of the Reformation period. You are however correct. You alledued elsewhere that I am an historican. That may be true. But to appreciate historical western civilization, it is impossible to separate 'church history' from 'western history', as the two histories are really one ONE HISTORY, and inseparatably connected. Hopefully, you will admit tonight, that western history far predates the post reformation period! I guess, in all of this I am suggesting here that Jesus Christ is the embodient of His Church, or at least as the 'head' of the Church, and that certainly never did NOT begin in post-reformation history in the west. You wrote: > However, if we study Islam today > and shortly after its birth, the vision remains quite similar, if not the > same. I apologize for the misstatement regarding Islam. It's sometimes > hard to keep track of all the Prophets. Indeed it is! Since we're talking about Christmas here, we have another creature on the scene that the Bible talks about as the real, legitimate, 'Son of God' Himself! Now, obviously THAT is a hard one to chew! The real Son, or the REAL God ... born in a simple stable, in a remote town called Bethlehem! Come on! Give me a break! Can any of this really be true? > Although very much off-topic here, I'm sure Frank, being a good student of > history, would probably extend his blessings to a thorough discussion of > the implications of the Reformation. I *like* the various depictions of > the Pre-Reformation as done by historians. They make the pre-Reformation > sound like Times Square on New Years Eve sometimes. ;-) Not really, Dave. The real description of "The Birth", which I will publish again, as I have done for the last twelve years, from St. Luke, Chapter 2 (RSV), is not necessarily in the hands of 'historicans' completetely. This message is in the hands of the 'Messenger', certainly not me! That is the real mystery of Christmas that you are looking for, and also, for all of the post-messages you may be waiting for. That's why I do this every year. I believe that most individuals here believe in personal liberty, as I do myself. Most of the year we talk about all facits of what such liberty entials, and where it comes from. I believe it comes from the Christmas message. So, I look forward to posting that same message, as I have done each year, for all of these years, for eveyone to read and ponder, consider, and contemplate, themselves. Kindest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
