Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 141487 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.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#100999 Apr 26, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>If a holy ghost was verifying truth, why so many different opinions of what god wants,why so many religions, why so many denominations, who so many sects?
Because in most all of these churches there are truths. They have pieces of the gospel, but most of the founders of these churches readily admitted that it was not the full gospel, but rather the best they could do.
Roger Williams even said that until angels and apostles visit the earth, God's church would not be here. Nevertheless, they all are able to feel the Holy Ghost because of the truths that exist. Everyone feels the Holy Ghost differently, therefore it is difficult for some to separate prompting a from the Holy Ghost, from their own thoughts.
There is a difference however between feeling the influence of the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost through the priesthood authority of God.

Jesus prophesied that there would be a falling away from the church hat He established. And in Revelations, John tells us that the Heavens would be rolled up like a scroll and God would not speak to man for a period of time. This period of time, we call an apostasy, because there was no one appointed to receive revelation from God, therefore different interpretations of scripture began to occur. Questions needed to be answered but there was no one to receive revelation to answer the questions definitively.
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#101000 Apr 26, 2013
Romans

1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that I have
often purposed to come to you (but have been hitherto hindered)
that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among
other Gentiles.
1:14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the barbarians, both
to the wise, and to the unwise.
1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to
you that are at Rome also.
1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the
power of God to salvation to every one that believeth; to the
Jew first, and also to the Greek.
1:17 For in this is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness.
1:19 Because that which may be known of God, is manifest in
them; for God hath shown [it] to them.
1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made,[even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse:
1:21 Because that when they knew God, they glorified [him] not
as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools:
1:23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and
four-footed beasts, and creeping animals.
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the
lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between
themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and
served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for
ever. Amen.
1:26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections. For
even their women did change the natural use into that which is
against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men
working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves
that recompense of their error which was meet.
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their]
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those
things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder,
debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters,
inventers of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural
affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such
things are worthy of death; not only do the same, but have
pleasure in them that do them.
.
Repent, trust in Jesus, and be Saved!
Amen!
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#101001 Apr 26, 2013
Good day to you all!

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101002 Apr 26, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>"Science is useless"? Wrong, science can tell us their is no activity in the brain when we die.
Science can tell us that thoughts come from brain activity. So it certainly stands to reason when the brain stops working, we no longer have thoughts.
Now if you can show us how this is not so, please do so.
Maybe science is useless to you, but please do not speak for what science is good for in general, as it is clear most extreme Christians like yourself dismiss science on a regular basis.
It looks as if you look to religion for answers, not science, so I understand why you are so confused about science. If you have a question about science, just ask most any atheist. We will continue to ask you believers about religion. Hope you start answering more questions.
I'm not dismissing science in general. I'm dismissing science in the case of this one question where we, believers, believe that the spirit goes on after the body goes into the ground. We believe that the body will come back together with the spirit at Judgment Day. But since we believe the soul does not need a body in order to exist, We believe that we will be in the same state as before coming to earth: the spirit, or intelligence, that is not housed in a body. But we know through the teachings of Jesus Christ that we will be resurrected and our body will once again be reunited with the spirit.
So again, if I am right about the afterlife, then science cannot answer this question. Science can only confirm that the body is dead.

I did not say science is useless in general. Nor do I believe that. I said in this question science is useless.
Science can either prove nor disprove any life after death.
TruthIs

London, KY

#101003 Apr 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You weren't on the thread when he was cutting and pasting whole pages from the Watchtower that had little or nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Sorry if I sounded rude - I didn't intend to make you cry.
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.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101004 Apr 26, 2013
Wrong again Sparky wrote:
<quoted text>In the begging He created them Male, and Female....
Adam n Eve.... NOT Adam n Steve!
Get over it!
In the begging?

You seem really fixated on homosexuality. Was that a Freudian slip there?

“I'll think about it.”

Since: Nov 07

central Florida

#101005 Apr 26, 2013
Wrong again Sparky wrote:
<quoted text>In the begging He created them Male, and Female....
Adam n Eve.... NOT Adam n Steve!
Get over it!
This stupid remark is almost older than you are.
You need to get some new material for your rants.
They are getting repetitious and monotonous.

The fact that most of the time you simply laugh like a lunatic shows that, well.... you are a lunatic.
Jumping up and down shouting "god is real, he talks to me" convinces no one.
YOU convince no one.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101006 Apr 26, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>The difference in our trust of scientists testing theories compared to faith in religion is, we can actually check it if we wish, you cannot. You have blind faith, we do not.
No I do not have blind faith, I have faith.

And no you can't check everything with theories. If you could, they wouldn't be a theory anymore. You can try to come to the same conclusion using the same evidence, but as I have pointed out with dinosaurs, sometimes you don't have all the evidence, and sometimes scientists mess up.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101007 Apr 26, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Because in most all of these churches there are truths. They have pieces of the gospel, but most of the founders of these churches readily admitted that it was not the full gospel, but rather the best they could do.
Roger Williams even said that until angels and apostles visit the earth, God's church would not be here. Nevertheless, they all are able to feel the Holy Ghost because of the truths that exist. Everyone feels the Holy Ghost differently, therefore it is difficult for some to separate prompting a from the Holy Ghost, from their own thoughts.
There is a difference however between feeling the influence of the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost through the priesthood authority of God.
Jesus prophesied that there would be a falling away from the church hat He established. And in Revelations, John tells us that the Heavens would be rolled up like a scroll and God would not speak to man for a period of time. This period of time, we call an apostasy, because there was no one appointed to receive revelation from God, therefore different interpretations of scripture began to occur. Questions needed to be answered but there was no one to receive revelation to answer the questions definitively.
Are you familiar with Occam's razor?
TruthIs

London, 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

London, 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

London, 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

London, 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.

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
Tina Phipps and Vincent Brown 8 min agree 6
~~Keep A Word~~Drop A Word Game. (Jun '10) 16 min mae 690
sabrina corey 17 min banana split. 18
Tina and Luke 26 min lol 14
Tony Mills 1 hr Cindylouwho 2
computers for sale 1 hr ttwarewolf 24
Ralph smith 2 hr Lucy 1
The Oven Mitt 5 hr Truth 34
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages