please end your teaching streak because it goes against God's wishes.

New Testament people

A number of people in the New Testament are said to hold one or more of these offices:

Apostles: The Twelve (Luke 6:13-16), Matthias (Acts 1:24-26), Paul (Galatians 1:1), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7)

Prophets: The company from Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-28), Agabus (Acts 21:10-11), Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32) and the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9)

Teachers: Apollos (Acts 18:25), Paul (2Timothy 1:11)

Evangelists: Philip (Acts 21:9)

In addition to this, Acts 13:1-3 lists some "prophets and teachers" in Antioch: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen and Saul.

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

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.

LOL...most people misread that.

Paul qualified that. He actually has a passage in iirc 1 Corinthians where he says women can be led by the Spirit.

I've already told you in the past there were more prophets that were women in ancient Israel than there were men.

Of course, you only retain what interests you.

And was Paul talking to unbelievers?

Who was the teacher Priscilla anyways?

How would an unbeliever get to be a believer if a believer couldn't talk to him?

It's all a matter of perspective, grasshopper.

Splendour is probably the greatest teacher in RGT. If her posts don't trigger a reaction in you for you to transform or transmute, you are probably dead.

Please... I don't let any woman hold any authority over me. It would be blasphemous. I'm not going to allow you to pollute me with your demonic teachings. I prefer to read your humor.

Since I don't believe the Bible is the word of God I don't put much in the quote I posted. I simply like following some Christian's lead in picking and choosing verses as its convenient.

My issues with her teaching has nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with the fact that she's constantly contradictory or shows a profound misunderstanding of nearly everything she comments on.

That being said, she's the one person I always check to see what she's posting. Its always a surprise.

What do you understand by secularism?
What do you understand by separation of church and state?

Reminds me of this story:

Louisiana Revelation: School Voucher Funding – It’s Not Just For Christians Any More
A member of the Louisiana House of Representatives who eagerly supported Gov. Bobby Jindal’s plan to fund private schools has had an epiphany: Muslim schools might start getting taxpayer money!

Rep. Valarie Hodges, a Republican who represents East Baton Rouge and Livingston, now says she wishes she hadn’t voted for the Jindal voucher bill.

The newspaper reported that she “mistakenly assumed that ‘religious’ meant ‘Christian.’”

Where to begin? Hodges’ bigotry is perhaps only rivaled by her ignorance of constitutional and legal principles. Of course Muslim schools will qualify for funding under a voucher plan. When programs like this are set up that dole out benefits to religious schools, the government can’t play favorites. That’s basic.

Some legislators aren’t comfortable funding Muslim schools. What’s to be done? How about not establishing these programs in the first place? Let Muslims fund Muslim schools. Let Catholics fund Catholics ones. Let fundamentalist Protestants pay for the conservative Christian academies and so on.

I'm not so quick to classify people as bigots as you are. People are mostly a product of the culture and family they find themselves in. They don't normally freely associate mentally with groups they aren't naturally familiar with....and you know what...that's not a crime.

I wonder so many people want to play the bigot card all the time....it pretty much is destroying free thinking and free speech these days. You can't even talk any more for the extreme ways some people automatically interpret things.

Some people are totally caught up in partisanship but partisanship is more about winning than it is about the truth.

And that says something about the way some people are rigged. Some people are more driven to win than they are driven to be right.

I didn't write that article, I only linked it.

In any case, this is a state representative we are talking about, someone that is supposed to be representing her constituents, not just those of her own immediate culture. How well is she performing, would you say:

“I liked the idea of giving parents the option of sending their children to a public school or a Christian school,” Hodges said.
Hodges mistakenly assumed that “religious” meant “Christian.”
“I do not support using public funds for teaching Islam anywhere here in Louisiana.”


And again:

What do you understand by secularism?
What do you understand by separation of church and state?

If you simply miss-spoke, you could just say so, but I'm genuinely interested in how you see these differently.

I don't think separation of church and state and secularism are identical ideas.

When you trace back these ideas to their sources secularism traces to many people.

I suppose separation of church and state does, too, but most Americans point to John Locke. If you read up on Locke he intended to escape authoritarianism with it.

So I think secularism is a worldview while separation of church and state is a political view.

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

Quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Among Locke's political works he is most famous for The Second Treatise of Government in which he argues that sovereignty resides in the people and explains the nature of legitimate government in terms of natural rights and the social contract. He is also famous for calling for the separation of Church and State in his Letter Concerning Toleration. Much of Locke's work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This is apparent both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. Locke believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determine the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity.

Ah, I think you are confusing Secular Humanism with Secularism. Easy mistake to make

Secularism is just a change to separation of church and state. Originally Locke was using separation of church and state to serve a divine purpose.

Then Holyoake came along in the mid 1800's and said:

"Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."

I think people have lost sight that Locke intended separation of church and state to serve a divine purpose and have substituted Holyoake's idea and lost touch with the actual root idea of the separation of church and state.

quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

Well, I was just curious why you thought they were different, and so far I don't see where you think there is any. What zumby posted might have something to do with it as well, I hadn't thought of that. But secularism should be just as important to religious folk, in an identical way that separation of church and state is important.

What does the bolded mean?

Also, why are you talking about Locke so much? I know his ideas were important to Jefferson etc, but since this thread is concerning US conservatives and Christianity, what matters is what Jefferson, Madison etc intended.

I think it's interesting because I believe in spiritual warfare and I believe a lot of that warfare plays out in ideas.

I wish I had the time to do research into the evolution of ideas because if the idea of separation of church and state arose as a godly idea and then was used against God then didn't the original idea get changed against the author's original intent? Unless He has a hidden intent or a secondary one that's almost as important as the primary one.

The bible claims God is the author of this world yet somebody is always taking His ideas and meddling with them when they can't dash them to pieces.

Look at this quote from a book review of a book dealing with the evolution of ideas:

"Throughout history, we humans have prided ourselves on our capacity to have ideas, but perhaps this pride is misplaced. Perhaps ideas have us. In this book, science writer and documentary filmmaker Jonnie Hughes investigates the evolution of ideas, taking a look at how they seem to have lives of their own."

http://www.amazon.com/On-Origin-Tepe.../dp/1439110239

Madison, Jefferson, etc all should be tried for treason against their countrymen for abandoning the law.*

*Assuming they knew that the Brits are the Israelites (very likely as I've seen evidence here and there..), and they didn't repent. Sigh, we're so far away from talking about what's relevant. I mean...we should be figuring out the mechanics of forgiveness and repentance within the context of God's law by now (to see how to deal with Jefferson), but were trying to force God into our kingdom instead.

fyp

If only some all powerful being existed that could protect God's ideas and intent from those meddling humans

I think Christians like a hands off government because they actually think they can compete?

Hmm, Idk......perhaps if the powers that be had Marx in the U.S., and our guys in Russia, it wouldn't really have made a difference. I mean...we received one sided propaganda pushing for individual liberty, they got propaganda pushing for the collectivist benefits...bada bing...the world is split into two camps and the bankers profit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B_SxGmSJP0

Why do you keep focusing on the law so much Spray?

Don't you know that Jesus Christ is suppose to be our primary focus and didn't he reduce the law down to 2 commandments?

Romans 8:1
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death."

more on this topic here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+8&version=NIV

And this:

Paul's Scientific Discovery of the Law of Sin and Death
http://mikeblume.com/science.htm

If God wants us to explore the pitfalls of free will then that's all right by me. Of course, it'd be a pity if humans let the devil get the upperhand.

But you do know who really holds the debt don't you? Jesus Christ.

Keep watching those international bankers. Some people think the economy should have crashed 40 years ago but something is keeping it up.

God likes declaring Jubilees and setting people free from all kinds of things that burden them.

The law is everything - "those who do and teach [it] will be called great in the kingdom"

But Jesus Christ is the embodiment of all scripture. He's the Word became flesh.

Don't you know a lot of the OT law is prophetic? I admit I could study it more closely to understand the symbolism of it.