(February 10, 2015 at 10:22 pm)dyresand Wrote:(February 10, 2015 at 9:51 pm)emilynghiem Wrote: I don't think you get what I'm saying
It's not imposing anything in the Bible to try to make things true.
It's using the Bible to rebuke others using the Bible
To correct errors and to establish truth.
You use it neutrally as a tool for ppl who speak that language.
Frankly I prefer to use Constitutional principles.
Even those are supposed to be used neutrally
And not supposed to impose religions or beliefs.
The Bible is supposed to be used to check Believers against abuses by rebukes in the spirit of the laws.
Okay so you are saying the whole bible is true when in fact its just made up stories. Back then woman were treated like objects and not even equivalent to a man. So woman are treated still like objects but more or less middle eastern countries do and even some people mainly theists do here in the states. The bible contradicts itself from the start on the genesis account.
Dear D:
Is the math system true? Doesn't it depend how you use it?
Is the "Texas Rules of Civil Procedure" true? Doesn't it depend how you use it and what outcome you get?
You are already assuming content, but I am looking at the raw system.
Whatever content you are mixing in, I'm not counting that as the universal laws used to rebuke people. If I were you I would drop that and start from neutral.
Once you start with the raw system, THEN you can APPLY it toward addressing slavery or Bible history, etc.
You can't use the raw scientific method if you already mixed some other content in there and start with skewed assumptions attached to the steps.
Maybe I'm not saying this right, I apologize.
I am using the Bible to hold Christians to the "process of rebuke"
in Matthew 18:15-20, James 5:16, scriptures on removing beams from their eyes before helping neighbors, forgiving others if they want their faults forgiven, etc.
I can't even GET to the content you are bringing up, if we can't even agree on the basic rules of how to redress grievances.
That part is universal and can be applied to redressing issues with any other content or history, like slavery etc.
But if you can't even agree on the ground rules of how to address each other, no content is going to get straightened out anyway.
Sorry this wasn't clear. It isn't clear to Christians either who keep going into it wrong, too. First step is agreeing to redress issues as EQUALS and not fight to reject the other.
Frankly this is why I gave up trying to use this because not even Christians were following it. I went back to the natural law system of free speech, right to petition and due process where you don't "assume guilt until proven innocent" but both parties agree to start at neutral.
If you can't agree to that, you're FU anyway no matter what you're discussing even if you are right.
