Just as today the colonial days of America were dominated primarily by two polarizing philosophies, The Puritans and The Humanists. The Puritans were a methodical group of wholesome Christians most distinguished for their founding of the Plymouth colony and their early domination of colonial Massachusetts as well as stanch views of hard work, predestination and most of all that mankind is inheritably wicked, thus all good deeds are merely deeds seeking rewards. While The Humanists however were a highbrow intellectual group, who the most famous members were that of founding fathers, focused on the power of what man can do for man and thus man is solely benevolent at heart. In Fact all men seek reward for their own good deeds whether the reward be spiritual or personal, but is this selfish nature necessarily a bad thing. …show more content…
Not to discredit the morals of these individuals, but everyone who grows up spiritual, despite your religion, is applied to a promise of something for good deeds, whether it’s an Abrahamic heaven or a Buddhist’s nirvana. Religion is the ultimate source of morals for society. Without religion people would be stuck forming their own morals, and some would say we would just be a roaming band of sociopaths. An influential mildly puritan sermon called Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God focuses upon the power of fear to terrorize a largely spiritual audience even going as far as to claim that “The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and the justice bends the arrow at your heart….” (Edwards 47). Such appeal to fear is petrifying to a spiritual audience, almost forcing their hand to do more good. Even the most moral individual would question the validity of his actions with this fear of hell and punishment lurking