Quote:
Originally Posted by x-factor
I agree that was unclear.
My point is that the Bible is generally concerned about individual morality, not the practicalities of organizing a government.
|
I would agree with this, with one caveat: the Bible seems to say that some form of government is better than anarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-factor
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.
|
Can you cite where the Savior rescinded capital punishment for murder?
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-factor
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.
|
I would argue that both the Ten Commandments and Christ's summation advocate separation of church and state.
The first 4 commandments have to do with man's duty to God. (church)
The last 6 commandments have to do with man's duty to one another. (state)
Christ parallels this in His Commandments.
This division of the Ten Commandments is still displayed on the insignia of Jewish chaplains.
The Roman numerals 1-4 show on the right tablet, and 5-10 show on the left. (Hebrew is read right-to-left).
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-factor
I don't dispute this, but Mosaic Law is the practice of the Hebrews, not the Word of God.
|
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.
The Torah is normally considered to be canon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-factor
That the English adopted it was a matter of philosophy and respect for tradition.
|
Seems like they made a good choice.
I wonder what it is about the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand that makes them so attractive to immigrants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-factor
(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.)
|
There is probably a great deal of tribal law mixed in where Sharia Law is practiced.
Furthermore, systems rooted in English Common Law are quite distinct from those rooted in Roman Law.
Compare the USA and Canada to our various neighbors to the south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-factor
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.
|
I would argue that the founding fathers inferred from the Bible that humans will tend toward corruption, selfishness, and oppression.
Therefore, they instituted a system of checks and balances to counter that tendency.