[x-factor]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

I don't disagree with your original statement in its entirety.
That being said, I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this.
I would tend to disagree with this one part of your statement.

I agree that was unclear. My point is that the Bible is generally concerned about individual morality, not the practicalities of organizing a government.

Lets look at your passages:
Romans 13:1-7 - This basically just says that government is good and necessary. It doesn't prescribe anything specifically.

Proverbs 8:15-16 - Again, this just says that God is not anti-government. It does not say anything about a specific law code or method of governance.

Matthew 22:15-22 - "Render unto Caesar." This supports a separation of Church and State affairs. Again, you find no passage like this in the Quran.

Judges 17:6, 21:25- This just says "anarchy is bad."

Psalm 72 - This one makes my earlier point beautifully. The Psalm simply asks the Lord to support the government in very general terms. It asks that the Lord make him righteous, merciful, etc. It doesn't say "God says that the King should undertake X, Y, and Z" policies.

I Peter 2:13-16 - Again, this just supports the notion of government in general, not in terms of a specific policy. It also adds a bit about ultimate personal morality in at the end, which goes to my point about the Bible being more a religion of individuals.

I Timothy 2:1-2 - Pray that the government is "good", not "pray that the government does X, Y, Z."

Titus 3:1 - One more time, government is good and necessary.

Genesis 9:5-6 - Ok, finally a specific policy. Capital punishment for murder. The fact that its arguably overturned by Jesus in the New Testament, we won't get into.

These verses all make my point. The Bible, more specifically the New Testament, deals with issues of government at a distance and through the lens of personal morality. Even the Ten Commandments (which Christ boiled down to two), are all about person-to-person relations and even then they leave a lot of room for variation in an individual's life.

The Quran is different. Its a full-fledged blueprint for a community. It talks about methods of property division, of divorce, of criminal prosecution, of treaty-making, etc. It goes into legal and policy specifics that you don't see anywhere in Christ's teachings.

Much of English Common Law (and, by extension, law in this nation) is based upon Mosaic Law.
(Bad credit only held against you for 7 years, testimony of two witnesses required for treason conviction, etc.)

I don't dispute this, but Mosaic Law is the practice of the Hebrews, not the Word of God. That the English adopted it was a matter of philosophy and respect for tradition. Thats why we still eat delicious BBQ ribs and don't stone people to death for planting two kinds of crops side-by-side. We saw no sense in those parts of Mosaic law and since they were ancillary to the faith, we just dropped them.

Thats the point I was making to Justin. You can't say "oh, jihadists are using religion to mask a political agenda." The jihadists don't see any difference between the two. To a jihadist there is nothing in the Quran that is "just tradition" or "ancillary to the faith."

(Also much of English Common Law was also based on Roman Law and on pagan tribal law, so its not exactly a direct descendant anyway.)

The men who forged the laws governing this nation apparently inferred that the Bible said something about government.

No, they inferred that the Bible said something about personal character and they established a democratic system where the laws of the nation should and will reflect the character of its people. Therefore, the Christian nature of the nation would come through even without being explicitly established in legal codes and governmental structures. In other words, they inferred that the government didn't need to be Christian because when the people are Christian, they elect Christian lawmakers and those Christian men write Christian laws.