We were specifically referencing the intellectual movements and the philosophy of government.
Which includes social issues. Like I said I don't think theres a line of seperation. Being Deistic and its ideological beliefs relationg to the world will encroach on social issues in how we order society. The philosophy of a government will impact on social policies.
A practical example is the idea of humans being made in Gods image. This was the grounding for human worth that set it above and beyond human ideology about human worth. But Deism reduced that back to human ideology as it took the personal aspects of the relationship with GOd away.
The rational inquiry of God in nature became the rational skeptism of no God at all. The grounding was lost and human worth was either based on human ideas or some ambigious principle floating out there in the universe. If there was no personal God then there was no human rights grounded in God beyond human rationalisations.
We are aware that the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies were theocratic in nature. They are not the basis for any of the documents or later movements you spoke of, or our modern society.
Every coloney was Christain based some more than others. There was no secular ideology. Therefore these influenced social norms and the politics. We see this reflected in the actual social norms and laws of government which were based on the bible.
Even the idea of seperation of church and State stems from a Christain worldview. You have to remember that the worldview back then was different to todays worldview of over 200 years of that proinciple being implimented. But despite the idea in the beginning the worldview was Christain and this tainted all thinking.
The documents you vaguely mentioned. These documents were not "bible based", nor about the criminal statutes (much of which was in the common law). They were not about setting the morals of society.
Which documents are you referring to.
"pioneers"? What are you talking about?
Sorry its my lazy way of saying the settlers and founders of America. What actually happened within social norms and laws. Despite the seperation of church and State there was not really seperation of church and State. Some of the founding fathers even acknowledged this.
That in reality the government could not completely be devoid of God and Christain beliefs as this was the foundation on which they believed kept society ordered.
When and where were 90-100% of the people Christian in a place with separation (legal or de facto) of church and state? [Before you say "the early US", I'll tell you up front that that would be a wrong answer.]
Ok I thought the early colonies were predominately Christain. That is why most fled British rule over church doctrine and status and they wanted to setup their own Christain colonies.
If there were a minority then how could they impose such social norms and laws based on the bible. Like it was compulsory to attend church. Laws outlawing adultery and homosexuality ect.
If it wasn't the majority belief then certainly it was the dominant social norm and worldview that ordered society.
Religion in Colonial America was dominated by Christianity although Judaism was practiced in small communities after 1654. Christian denominations included Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Congregationalists, German Pietists, Lutherans, Methodists, and Quakers among others. Religion was fully integrated into the lives of the colonists and completely informed their world view.
Religion in Colonial America was dominated by Christianity although Judaism was practiced in small communities after 1654. Christian denominations included Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Congregationalists...
www.worldhistory.org
We're not talking about social norms, we are talking about that list of "Christian influeneced documents" you gave.
Yes and how those documents were influenced by the Christain social norms and worldview at that time. Thats why I brought them up.
Now I really dno't know when you were talking about earlier. I would help if you used a little more specificity in your claims. (Other than the "18th century" tag, I have no idea what you think you are talking about here. I know somethings that might fit, but I tire of trying to read between the lines of vagueness.
Thats because its such a big time period to determine Christain influence on the west. The Enlightement was an 18th century movement though questioning of the church began earlier with the Reformation.
I highlighted the time around the reformation and Enlightenment to point out that despite this influence the Christain worldview was still a strong influence. It was a gradual decline of the church and an increase in the secular State. It wasn't a clear line.
Even up until the mid 20th century the Christain worldview was still dominant and influenced social norms and laws. I mentioned we only brought in divorce laws and the SSM laws around the year 2000.
Umm, yeah. I wasn't talking about the guy who invented the salad.
That was the point. Democracy was basically dead in the "West" and Christianity didn't bring it to anyone. It only really came back after the Enlightenment happened.
Ok well the idea of democracy was already being implemented within the church and it was Christains who really brought this to the fore.
As one of the more powerful institutions of the Middle Ages, Church attitudes were reflected in many secular laws of the time.[87]: 1 The Catholic Church was very powerful, essentially internationalist and democratic in it structures, with its many branches run by the different monastic organizations, each with its own distinct theology and often in disagreement with the others.[88]: 311, 312 [89]: 396
Calvin strengthened this basically democratic approach by including elected laymen (church elders, presbyters) in his representative church government.[142] Politically, John Calvin favoured a mixture of aristocracy and democracy. He appreciated the advantages of democracy: "It is an invaluable gift, if God allows a people to freely elect its own authorities and overlords."[144] Consistent with Calvin's political ideas, Protestants created both the English and the American democracies.
In North America, Plymouth Colony (Pilgrim Fathers; 1620) and Massachusetts Bay Colony (1628) practised democratic self-rule and separation of powers. These Congregationalists were convinced that the democratic form of government was the will of God. Thus early Protestants resisted political absolutism and paved the way for the rise of modern democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Christianity_in_civilization
None of this is relevant (nor do I care).
I think it is relevant and we should be concerned as it relates to the O. Here we have the Christain worldview entering into western thinking and social norms which was radical compared to the Greco Roman pagan worldview. We have and example of two worldviews to compare as to which was better for society and the world.
It seems like you could use some reading on early Church history.
I am talking about the early church that Paul was writting to. How they had setup a system of elected elders to represent the members. The same principle was used in the offical Catholic church with the Pope and all the delegates and reps of different congregagtions as mentioned above. This was then refined further by Calvin and Aquinus.
The basic Christain principle was all were equal in Christ and had free will to choose. No one should Lord over another and even the leaders were subject to God.
[picard-riker-face-palm.gif]
Most of the English colonies were sectarian from the beginning.
As per link above they were predominately Christain sects or denominations. They were not muslim were they. They all believed in the creator God and saviour Christ of the bible.
Some were commercial colonies chartered by the English monarch with the CoE established (though not strictly enforced, it was about money after all), most of New England has established dissenting sects (Puritans mostly) running theocracies (or near theocracies).
Yes decenting sects but not decenting against God or the bible. These were differenting interpretations about the same belief of Christainity. Today we don't say that say Methodists or Baptist are not Christain even though they may have conflicting views on how to apply Christainity.
There are a few colonies that fit your narrative: Rhode Island was a breakaway colony founded for non-Puritan dissenting protestants to escape the Puritan theocracies, NY was a captured Dutch colony and the English had no desire to remove the settled population with their own religious sect,
And what religion were they Christain or Muslim. They were all still Christain based.
Maryland was founded for Catholics, but not many came (it was more of a place where Catholicism was legal)
So far you have named all Christain denominations in all these areas. You making the mistake of thinking a different denomination equals a different religion.
THe sword and the crib, those are the reasons Christianity got and stayed big. State preference of religion is the opposite of democratic.
You have a very cynnical view of the history of Christainity.
I don't think this is a conversation we can get into. I'd at least want to read a book or two on the topic.
Actually its completely relevant to the core of whether Christainity is better for the world. The fundemental principles of democracy are reflected in Christain principles of equality, freedoms and human worth which can all be justified within a Christain worldview.
These cannot be rationalised within a world without God that is pagan or material evolution without any basis beyond human ideology. That was the basis Christainity stopping slavery as humans under a worldview were just animals of varying worth according to the strictures of social norms at the time.
Christainity was at least able in principle to supporting these principles. Such as slaves and masters were equal under Christ or every individual had the same worth as being made in Gods image and not mans. This formed the basis for these principles as well as Bills of Rights, Declarations and Human Rights. 
