True, one phrase doesn't a foundation make. I'm using it to illustrate a general teaching of Christisanity. That is, the realms of heaven and earth are separate. Which is different than what came before. The gods the greeks and romans worshiped were basically gods of the state. If I'm not mistaken the God of Islam basically has his hand in every aspect of Man's life.

I could also give you this quote from Mr. Christ:"My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

What about the doctrine of free will? One could say that's an illustration of the separate realms.


Just because Jesus didn't overturn some status quo doesn't mean his teachings and couldn't have planted a seed.

You agree that Xianity is a major backdrop to world affairs and that I offer some good points, but still stop short of giving it any credit. BTW, I'm not trying to give it all the credit.
Whether what Jesus was saying was new or not, or whether free will was a doctrine that came later is irrelavent to me. They're both part of a larger movement of Christianity through the ages. Free will could be said to lead to Democracy because it posits dual realms, one being heaven and one where each individual is equally capable choosing they're own moral or immoral actions. The key word here is 'equal'.

To my knowledge there was no coherent doctrine of the equality of every person before Christianity. It doesn't strike you as interesting that the first anti-slavery movement in Britain was begun by Quakers? Compare that to the fact it seemed perfectly logical throughout ancient greek society to have slaves. Even Plato, in describing his most just city, thought it perfectly okay.

I would put forth that all of religion wasn't necessarily being refuted during the Enlightenment. Like I said before many Enlightenment thinkers were Christians. Bacon and Descartes, the great champions of science, were both believers. In fact many thinkers thought the world was orderly and decipherable precisely because they believed God made it that way(I'm just saying...)

I want to be clear:
1. I appreciate your points in general on politics and other areas.
2. I am not trying to stop short and give you no credit (or Xianity no credit), I am saying that it would be a monumental and, frankly, subjective task in finding how Xianity relates to Democracy.

A. The is no mention of Democracy in the Bible.
B. Democracy in one form predated Xianity
C. Any text that is used to suggest a Democratic value came AFTER democracy. It is after the fact reasoning. For example, some people can find commentary on stem cell research in the Bible, but be sure, people in the 800's weren't clamoring for it.
D. Surely the most acute reasons for Democracy are the events the most closely preceeded it.
E. It took many events that were antithetical to the Xian religion to spur democracy.
F. Any mention of politics in the Bible is strictly Monarchical, and in support of that system, though Greek Democracy would have been available to them. (And certainly, Jesus if a God, should have been able to say exactly what he would expect of everyone in all aspects of life).

That said, I realize that many Xians were responsible for Democracy (however, Deists too, even in France, and that is the more important catalyst that I would point to - the rejection of an authoritarian monarchical system, to one based on the science and learning of the day: Humanism, which is one of the reasons I gravitate towards Humanism- not the other way around).

Oh, and though some Xians were involved (and certainly we can say that it took the population of Xians to accpet the new system), we can't know what kind of Xians they were.  Were they all good Xians following the Bible?

No. In fact, your quote highlights it: They were not intersted in giving Caeser (the King) what the King considered his. They were, quite thankfully, uncharitable and not accepting of the Monarchy.

I don't want us to start talking past each other and I'm afraid if we keep talking in generalities and multiple points we will lose some focus.

What is interesting is that this kind of relates in a way to our C&E conversation.

You are suggesting that the words of Jesus are related to Democracy.

Why not the words that Jesus was told, or the words that were said after?  What makes you pick the stopping point at Jesus?

Certainly the concept of all people being equal came before Jesus (where did he get the idea?), but I would also argue that you seem to be picking phrases out of context.

After all, I can point to you the phrases that make it clear that Servents are servents, and Masters are Masters, and Caesr gets his, and women are subordinent, etc.  In one parable, Jesus says that a Master was rejected by his citizens, and yet the parables ends saying that the Master calls for everyone who opposed his rule be slaughtered in front of him. The parable is likening the Master to God.  (IN fact, lets be honest, all of Jesus' sayings are about a personal relationship with God and not politics).

In the context of the time, I see nothing about Democracy.  In order for that idea to have flourished I submit that other ideas must have stimulated them and THEN you can go back to the Bible and pick and choose to support your thesis.

It is more likely that the idea of democracy started to flourish and people went back to the Bible to find verses to justify it.  But this could be said for Socialism, Communism, Tyranny, etc.

Perhaps the difficulty is that most Xians today feel their religion is in support of it (but again.. it took 1700 years?!)

wiki, for talking points and what makes a point I am trying to make:



To pick Xianity out of all the reasons just seems Christocentric and not very rigorous.




edit: I might just add this.  I see many versions of Democracy pre-dating Jesus, you have offered only a few vague references that you claim are a basis for democracy, and there was a lot of water under the bridge between Jesus modern democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy

(Yes, its wiki, but its a spring board for conversation, not presented as fact).