On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Haim <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Kirby Urner Posted: Oct 29, 2012 1:16 PM >> >>What's your problem guy? I happen to be reading 'The >>Origins of Proslavery Christrianty: White and Black >>Evangelicals in Colonial and Antebelllum Virginia" by >>Charles F. Irons (c) 2008, University of North Carolina >>Press. > > You are committing a chomskyism. What you wrote (whatever you may have intended) is the intellectual equivalent of reading a biography of Jeffrey Dahmer and generalizing to the American population. >
That's a very abstruse name for a rhetorical gaff, whereas I think you just mean "over -generalization" or "leaping to false conclusions based on insufficient evidence" or something we've all heard of.
Your efforts to pick on an MIT academic by turning his name into a logical flaw of some kind: did you make that up or am I going to find out what you've been reading? Who's spreading this one? Inquiring minds want to know.
> Christianity is the single greatest force for freedom in human history, by far. It is also a fast evolving religion that has spanned the globe in the course of its 2,000 yr history. Have there been, therefore, some fringe groups and a few minor dead-end ramifications? Of course. But a chomskyism does not even rise to the level of generalizing from a sample of one. To commit a chomskyism is to generalize from an outlier against a moutain of evidence to the contrary. > > Haim > No representation without taxation.
Then you make a speech full of sweeping generalizations. Yawn.
Some of the fringe Christians *have* been catalysts for freedom for sure, not so sure about the mainstream though as humans tend to be herd animals and with all that talk of "pastors" and "flocks" I think Xtianity in the main advertises as a herd religion. But you're right, some Christians have been major game changers / players (I don't count Jesus because I never think of him as "Christian" -- nor did he of himself). Descartes for example, a Catholic though he had a lot of Protestant friends (in those days, those were the two categories of Christian for the most part, if you lived in Europe). Intellectuals were paranoid about the Inquisition in those days, which you might call "fringe" or a "dead end" just as Nazism was a bastardization of the worst in German philosophy.
Are there still greater religions yet to come? Well, of course that depends how you define "religion" and "greater". We don't need to speculate here. I do think we'll be having more "designer religions" that are shorter lived, make no pretensions to being "world religions", yet have their happy adherents in scattered global networks. Some companies already constitute such cults, just don't self-brand in that way.
I've been looking at how "run of the mill" Quakers before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation were more like "shut up already about everyone freeing their slaves, it ain't gonna happen any time soon and we want to be seen as 'good Americans' who support the gummint, and the gummint says having slaves is OK for some people, even if we Quakers have freed all of ours by now (took awhile -- don't expect everyone else to be as virtuous, they smoke and drink too)."
That's similar to most Quakers today on having nuclear weapons, which most say is OK for some for the time being whereas a minority considers it ipso facto a delegitimizing moral toxin that erodes the sovereignty and statehood of any demonic organized gangland that holds them, like acid on skin (hey, it's Halloween, lets play it up). This vocal minority (including corpse-brides like Valerie Plame, who narrated 'Countdown to Zero') is regarded as discordant, rebellious and "punk" (drape) by many Conservative [Square] Friends, mostly based in places like Iowa, other "states" with missile silos, whereas my branch is "Beanite" if you look it up, good essay by Chuck Fager, one of our historians: http://www.quaker.org/liberal-history/bean.html ).