Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 151817 comments on the The Courier-Journal story from Feb 10, 2010, titled Bible study rules for public schools proposed. In it, The Courier-Journal reports that:

FRANKFORT, Ky. - The state would create rules for teaching about the Bible in public high schools under a bill filed Monday by three Democratic senators.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Courier-Journal.

TruthIs

Lexington, KY

#101008 Apr 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no Garden of Eden. Get over it.
That's not what some geographical historians are saying...they think it actually might've been where a few bodies of water met-over there around where the Tigras and the Euphratis, and maybe the Hiddekel and Perath, dump(ed) into the Persian Gulf.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see some of those ohhhh-so-think-they-know-it-al l types, have to run their lamebrained ignorance by some actually TRULY educated, honest earned credentialed scholars?!

(That'd be good for some laughs for sure then!!)
TruthIs

Lexington, KY

#101009 Apr 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no Garden of Eden. Get over it.
Is this where we get to foller you arounDUH, and click them thar lil judge-eet when weez just don't agreez wit yer opeeneyun icons fer hypocrites?

"Nuts...cweuless...spam " .....follering you to yer next post...."nuts, cwueless...spam".....stil l follering you......."nuts...cwueles s..."...

Maybe we should aks topeeks for epo's against hater topeeks stalker Freaks lol.
TruthIs

Lexington, KY

#101010 Apr 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no Garden of Eden. Get over it.
Oh yeah...and do we get to use our lamebrainedness ignorance and just post--you stupid...you a idiot...and I bet you <inseert whatever accusatory delusion of vileness you wish to here>....

Who wanner be a smelly of unrighteousness, vile tawrking hypocrite?

PASS on that donkeydung pattie covered with flies lol.
TruthIs

Lexington, KY

#101011 Apr 26, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
Good day to you all!
Have a nice day YaA!!

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101012 Apr 26, 2013
TruthIs wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what some geographical historians are saying...they think it actually might've been where a few bodies of water met-over there around where the Tigras and the Euphratis, and maybe the Hiddekel and Perath, dump(ed) into the Persian Gulf.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see some of those ohhhh-so-think-they-know-it-al l types, have to run their lamebrained ignorance by some actually TRULY educated, honest earned credentialed scholars?!
(That'd be good for some laughs for sure then!!)
Would you mind citing your source(s)?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101013 Apr 26, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I understand you believe this, and I am not really asking that question. I am asking if this is what you believe, then is not all claims of the bible made by prophets up for question? Does it not make the claim that homosexuality is an abomination possibly wrong?
I have asked this several times and in various ways, but either you cannot comprehend the question, or you are running from it.
Try giving a straight answer to the question for a change, instead of answering the question you wish was asked?
My answer has been consistently written each time you ask. Pay attention this time.
Opinions that are never recorded as doctrine, mean nothing to the church and should not affect its members, even from a prophet.
Homosexuality was included in scripture and verified by other prophets and Jesus Christ, therefore is doctrine.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101014 Apr 26, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I really want answers from you, but for some reason you do not answer. What gives?
You disliking my answer does not constitute no answer from me.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101015 Apr 26, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So are you telling me if a claim is repeated, this leads you to believe the claim is true? Just in case you were not aware, that is a textbook propaganda technique. But just know, homosexuality was barely spoke of in the bible.
I responded to your claim about Sodom and Gomorrah and you failed to answer.
Biblical scholars often dispute the claim that homosexuality was the reason for the fire and brimstone. The villagers in the story just wished to rape the visitors, not other villagers that were offered.
The story goes on to show the people of the village were all bad, and not in the ways you seem to think is the reason for the fire.

Also, the prophets of the old testament said cutting your side burns was bad also, so do you cut yours?

I am just trying to understand how you determine what is really a claim of a god.
You said the holy ghost helps clear up confusion, but if this is true, then why are their so many different opinions of what god wants?
Barely spoken of? Propaganda?
You really will not find many Christian sects that believe that homosexuality is not addressed in the Bible as an abomination. I'm not sure why you are attempting this argument.
If you insist on going this path: what Biblical scholars? Can you give us names? Let us all investigate these claims for ourselves.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#101016 Apr 26, 2013
TruthIs wrote:
<quoted text>
NO problem.
At least his(or her) posts aren't rude and filled with vile, ugly accusatory sounding ugliness at others.
That's just hypocritical, no matter the race, creed (or lack thereof) or color.
All that "I bet you...blahblahblah"
Doesn't get anymore (securally OR religiously) ignorant than THAT kind of lamebrainnedness crap in my book.
When have I ever posted "I'll bet you...?"
I find condescending proselytizing to be ignorant, rude, vile and ugly lame-brained crap, so sometimes I respond in kind. rest assured, I would be at least as obnoxious if an Amway salesman were to be as persistently obnoxious in their membership drive as Known Fact has been.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101017 Apr 26, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Any critical minded person does not live their lives based on a claim that does not have much evidence. This would be one of those cases.
It is pretty clear their are links between dinosaurs and birds, but that does not mean all claims about each one is true.
But most atheist science followers are not denying people rights due to what science is saying about ostrich eggs. But Christians do try and deny rights to homosexuals due to what the bible claims about them. You have absolutely zero evidence a god approved of condemning homosexuals.
We have the Bible. To Christians, that not only is evidence, but Gospel. But, though I disagree with a homosexual lifestyle, I do not intend to deny them rights either. You are stereotyping me with others. I don't mind if hey have all the same rights as married individuals. I would just prefer they not use the word marriage.

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#101018 Apr 26, 2013
See, this is the exact reason that it is so irritating to deal with people who rely on faith.
curious wrote:
I disagree that time is not relevant here and that if I am trying to give it relevance, it's because I am being tricked by an outdated part of my brain,whatever that might mean, That sounds absurd
See, I'm giving you serious answers here. I'm explaining that part of the human brain tends to believe things are connected when it supports something we wanted to believe. I'm showing you how there is certainly a logical and reasonable method through which this could have all occurred. You're dismissing it (and quite rudely at that).

You are not looking at this objectively, as I said would be required. You have the blinders on and are refusing to change your mind.
curious wrote:
These events took place on the same day,the same date and the same time 8;30 to 9;00 and it had never occurred to the lady in question, to look in the lost pet section previous to that particular day .
So,the fact that both occurences happened on the same day and date,at the same time,makes time very relevant AND can not be dismissed by stating that I was somehow tricked
BUT,could it have been a coincident,,,Yes
NO. They can EASILY be dismissed as you being tricked. Because you were. There is no connection and none can be drawn. It is a complete coincidence and irrelevant.
curious wrote:
You are making an assumption that seeks to justify your views,problem with that,as I see it is,most people that hear that their neighbor found a dog and gave it away are seldom concerned about trying to find it's owner..On their list of worries and concerns,that concern would be way at the bottom of the list,if,at all
..BUT,could this be a consecutive coincident,related to the first coincident.......YES
Again, you're being highly insulting. I'm not seeking to justify any views. You are the one with some irrational bias here. My hypothesis was developed by taking known facts about both your situation and how the human mind works AND is entirely probable, while yours requires the addition of an invisible all-powerful sky man (who never leaves an evidence of his existence) that magically influenced a person to call you just because you talked to him telepathically and said you would only believe in him if you got your doggy back.
And you're really casting stones at me? Acting as though I'm being disingenuous and making crap up just to justify some position I've already had? The hypocrisy sickens me.
curious wrote:
Again,you are making assumptions in order to justify your opinion,This has nothing to do with survival.
Moreover,to me,if for some reason that I can not explain,I turn to the lost pets section of the paper,something I had never had a reason to do previously,then I read through the ads and find that none of the descriptions in the ad seem to fit the dog in question, I would go on to read something else.That to me,would seem logical.
But ,you base your conclusions on risk/benefit analysis that the overwhelming majority of the people would never apply
You seem to be implying that your explanation,is,in effect,the way most people would react under the same circumstances.....To me ,that is an exceptionally long stretch.
But,could this be the third consecutive coincident in this chain of events.....YES
Again, you're being highly insulting. You can't operate in this world without assumptions. Every day, I assume that atomic structure is as we've theorized. It's based on a lot of reliable and well scrutinized evidence. But I have to make that assumption because I do not know.

"This has nothing to do with survival" and "risk/benefit analysis that the overwhelming majority of the people would never apply" are both massive conceptual errors on your part. I'm telling you how things work and why. These aren't overt, intentional actions that people take. It's how you're wired. Period.

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#101019 Apr 26, 2013
"To me ,that is an exceptionally long stretch."
Really? The dude with the theory that "an invisible sky man did it" is telling ME that my fact based and highly probably hypothesis is an exceptionally long stretch? Really? REALLLY?!!?!

What is wrong with you? How could any functioning mind make that statement in your position. I give you approximately .00001% chance of not being irreversibly brainwashed. It's freakin sad.
curious wrote:
Now,can I LOGICALLY conclude,based on your explanation,that these events have no other explanation,other than the one you gave. Logically means-According to logical reasoning?
What? NO. But I can easily, and logically, conclude that you have NO idea what logic actually is.

You were asking for a logical explanation. Not an absolutely refutable, 100% unquestionable, THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED explanation. A logical explanation. I gave you not only a logical explanation, but a LIKELY one. And one based solely on fact. Sure, it's possible that there are other logical explanations. I don't claim to be aware of all facts in the case. But no matter what, your completely illogical, completely nonfactual, and almost infinitely improbable explanation is not better.

Do you get it?
curious wrote:
Now ,here was the dilemna I faced, These events could all be a coincident,which I could not logically explain
However,the events that took place,wether by coincidence or design,led to my finding my dog..
And one of those events included my praying to a GOD that I did not believe in.
Again, you have almost no understanding of what logic is. Logic leads you DIRECTLY to labeling those things as coincidence. Coincidence plus human nature. That IS the logical explanation.

NOT "my sky daddy did it!". That is NOT logical.

And your praying, as science can demonstrate, was nothing other than an internal dialogue that influenced nothing outside of the neurons inside your head. It had no influence on the occurrences of that day. Logic demands that you do not try to force it into the equation.
curious wrote:
Now,the question arises,were the results based on a coincidence,or,If God really existed,was he somehow responsible for the results,
No, the question does not arise. Unless we are being irrational, illogical, unscientific, etc., that never crosses our mind.
curious wrote:
Something or someone caused this lady to act the way she did, Now I was very curious as to how or whom had caused this series of events.
I already told you how it could have happened.

From this point, your post goes straight off the rails. There is no logical way to get from the things we are discussing to "now I'll read the Bible". None.

You are completely unable to employ logic here. You are clinging to your presuppositions and feebly swatting at anything else. You are making NO sense. I did what I could, as nicely as I could, to try to help you understand how there are ways that it all could have happened without adding any imaginary beings, but you'll have none of it.

Now, I've soundly refuted all of your follow on arguments, and I'm quite confident that you'll have none of it. I'll just leave it all up here so that maybe somebody else that isn't so far gone can realize that "this is hard for me to understand" doesn't immediately lead to "GOD DONE IT!!!". And so all of the people claiming that you were insane or a waste of time (or whatever) can gloat and say "I told you so".
TruthIs

Lexington, KY

#101020 Apr 26, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you mind citing your source(s)?
I actually saw some of the initial discussion that brought it to mind, on the History channel, but I'd "bet" (if I were a betting person, which I tend not to be because that's not my personality type) there's lots of written sources on the subject matter as well.

Just pluck a few of the keywords, combined with garden and eden into any search engine of your choice!
TruthIs

Lexington, KY

#101021 Apr 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
When have I ever posted "I'll bet you...?"
I find condescending proselytizing to be ignorant, rude, vile and ugly lame-brained crap, so sometimes I respond in kind. rest assured, I would be at least as obnoxious if an Amway salesman were to be as persistently obnoxious in their membership drive as Known Fact has been.
You haven't, but there's been plenty that have.

Amway....lol...get thee ten steps back, or suffer the wrath of witnessing demon possession, oh SOOO over-priced pyramid thievers lol.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#101022 Apr 26, 2013
TruthIs wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah...and do we get to use our lamebrainedness ignorance and just post--you stupid...you a idiot...and I bet you <inseert whatever accusatory delusion of vileness you wish to here>....
Who wanner be a smelly of unrighteousness, vile tawrking hypocrite?
PASS on that donkeydung pattie covered with flies lol.
Alright then, please provide any objective and substantive evidence that supports ANY PART of the Book of Genesis - because the warehouses full of data that debunks it have been exhaustively reviewed in the 96,000+ posts on this thread, just as it has been on a hundred others.
But don't mind me, I just can't help pointing it out - or as you put it, "spewing that vile hypocrisy."

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101023 Apr 26, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Can your answers get any more vague? You did not answer my question at all. Just what constitutes a personal interaction?
When people get different answers than you when consulting the holy ghost, does this not prove it to be a delusion?
In other words, you can, individually, receive revelation from God through the Holy Ghost for matters in your own life.
My answers are short because I don't get hours on end to spend on here, so I have to be brief sometimes, and also, trying to explain to an atheist how to recognize the Holy Ghost is like trying to explain an emotion to someone. It can be difficult because He reveals Himself differently to everyone. It is difficult for believers to recognize the HG. For example, when attending a Pentecostal service, I did not relate to what they were feeling. That isn't how I recognize what is described in scripture as a still, small voice.

Though He manifests Himself differently, people will not receive a different answer from the Holy Ghost. So this indicates that an answer that is contrary to the Will of God, is not of God.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101024 Apr 26, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So you thus just did not look because science is sometimes wrong? Wow!!!

No one is basing their lives upon the idea that humans came out of Africa, but I think many theists base their lives upon the idea that Adam and Eve were claimed to be the first humans. You have absolutely zero evidence of that claim and their is a lot of evidence that disputes that claim. But you have shown me that you dismiss all science, so I now understand part of how you think.
I do not dismiss all science. But I do not abandon my beliefs because of a theory either.
No, I don't have evidence of Adam and Eve, nor did I claim to. I told you I believe because of my faith. This doesn't mean I don't like, or trust all scientific claims. I enjoy many aspects of science, physics in particular.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101025 Apr 26, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>Wha? Please tell me that you intended that as a joke.
No. I didn't. I'm explaining that scientists change their minds because of new evidence found. Therefore, for over 50 years we were taught incorrect information about dinosaurs because not all the required evidence was found to make the correct claims in these cases. All my old textbooks and children's books that include a brontosaurus are just as incorrect as "the world is flat" thinking.
TruthIs

Lexington, KY

#101026 Apr 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright then, please provide any objective and substantive evidence that supports ANY PART of the Book of Genesis - because the warehouses full of data that debunks it have been exhaustively reviewed in the 96,000+ posts on this thread, just as it has been on a hundred others.
But don't mind me, I just can't help pointing it out - or as you put it, "spewing that vile hypocrisy."
I think geography and the study of places of former civilizations is cool.

There's a reason there's seashells "patterned" in amongst the pyramids of Giza.
---
Many of Egypt's most famous monuments, such as the Sphinx and Cheops pyramid at Giza, contain hundreds of thousands of marine fossils, according to a new study.

Most of the fossils are intact and preserved in the monument walls, giving clues to how the monuments were built.

The authors suggest the stones that make up the Giza plateau, Fayum and Abydos monuments must have been carved out of natural stone as they reveal what chunks of the sea floor must have looked like over 4000 years ago, when the buildings were erected.

"The observed random emplacement and strictly homogenous distribution of the fossil shells within the whole rock is in harmony with their initial in situ setting in a fluidal sea bottom environment," write Professor Ioannis Liritzis and his colleagues from the University of the Aegean and the University of Athens.

Viegas, J. "Pyramids packed with fossil shells." ABC Discovery News. Science. Web. 4/28/2008. Last accessed 5/26/2013

Note: could be classified as "archaeology, earth-sciences, geology, palaeontology, ancient-religions" as well!!

---------

Oh wait...whatshisnameDukeydonkey dung...will have an issue with that LOL.

Same type of thing though lol.
TruthIs

Lexington, KY

#101027 Apr 26, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not dismiss all science. But I do not abandon my beliefs because of a theory either.
No, I don't have evidence of Adam and Eve, nor did I claim to. I told you I believe because of my faith. This doesn't mean I don't like, or trust all scientific claims. I enjoy many aspects of science, physics in particular.
Ahhh Physics...one of the elementary building block areas of Science, where even the most professedly studied, just sometimes have to say, in admittance of TRUTH, that "We do NOT know"!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Where TC go 1 min Kimberly 3
Ronnie Jackson 18 yrs old 21 min shian 2
Who will be the next Knox Co. Judge Exec.? 1 hr Pupinia 43
Where is Crystal Woolum 4 hr someone 2
Higher Property Taxes 5 hr taxpayer 17
Police: Woman arrested after passing out in car 5 hr Nolan 11
Whatever happened to the Eye Dr. Gregory? 6 hr patient 2
Older men Younger women 9 hr long cool woman 17

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages