Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Courier-Journal

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.

Comments
100,341 - 100,360 of 130,498 Comments Last updated 13 min ago
Ye of lil Understanding

Winchester, KY

#104953 May 28, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>You are a shame.
Romans
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.
Ye of lil Understanding

Winchester, KY

#104954 May 28, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>You judgmental SOB.
Romans
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.
.
Bless you!
Ye of lil Understanding

Winchester, KY

#104955 May 28, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>You need Special Ed.
You need Ed period!
John
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten
Son, that whoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have
everlasting life.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world, but that the world through him may be saved.
3:18 He that believeth on him, is not condemned: but he that
believeth not, is condemned already, because he hath not
believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the
world, and men have loved darkness rather than light, because
their deeds were evil.
3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither
cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
3:21 But he that doeth truth, cometh to the light, that his
deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#104956 May 28, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Again, if wrong is wrong, why do you only demand homosexuals not have the right to marry? Why not keep all people who are wrong from marrying?
Families were around long before your god was invented.
What a nut!
God created ALL, Not the other way around!
Buy a clue!
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#104957 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you... I can't seem to get anyone of them to answer these questions...Wonder why?
Darkness hates the Light!
If they seen the Light, they'd be on here posting against
everything they're posting for now!
That scares them!
God Bless :-)

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104958 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a simple question... Where did the intelligence for reproduction ( not life ) come from?
This is the type of question that _Ummm is complaining about. And I agree with him. It's outside the scope of what Evolution explains.

How did life originate? How did asexual reproduction originate? How did sexual reproduction originate? The theory of Evolution doesn't deal with any of these topics, nor should it. Evolution explains the diversification of life, not how it came into existence. Capisce?

All that aside, my question to you was what "cause and effect" provides scientific evidence for ID and not Evolution? This is something that you initially claimed (or at least strongly implied). How does your complaint that the Theory of Evolution doesn't define reproduction's origin provide evidence of ID?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104959 May 28, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
If schools aren't "allowed" to incorporate decency, ethics, respect for and Of others in daily routines, schools (that don't already), need to teach PHYSICS (again), even if Science itself, has yet to be able to answer ALL the questions all the time.
Such would redeem at least having some Faith in hope in future generations, because at least they might realize then, that until such a time when Science "knows all" (because it doesn't), it is good (Not bad) to treat others decently, ethically and respectfully in the meantime!
If the school is teaching ethics, maybe it should hold up the OT to show what is the most unethical rule book a culture could devise then show how logic and reasoning works so much better than rule books such as this.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104960 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh ok then guess we'll just have to take speculation as fact then... Wait a sec!! You already do that!!!
We take partial fossils that paint a large picture. You deny that picture exists.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104961 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
What question? Please restate...
Really? I asked more than once. What is your explanation of the dinosaur/ bird fossils found? What is your explanation of the many upright hominid fossils?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104962 May 28, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>We take partial fossils that paint a large picture. You deny that picture exists.
Yeah, he's playing the God of the Gaps card. I recently went through this with a relative. After about 30 minutes of back and forth, I asked him "what if there was a clear line of fossil evidence? What if the Smithsonian had on display, a perfectly preserved, and complete line of fossils that showed every "transition" from Darwinius to modern man? What would you think of that?" he replied "probably not much, it wouldn't change my mind at all". I then asked him "Then why do you even bring up holes in the fossil record?". He stared at me for a couple of seconds and then asked me how my job was going.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104963 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok let me make it simple as possible.. There has to be somewhere in all that overwhelming evidence a clear intermediate... Perhaps a fossil of a rhino with it's horn in half development or a spices of bat with half developed wings as evolutionist claim mutated from it's fingers... Good luck...
Many new traits are thought to come about quickly. This the likelihood of a transition fossil like this is very low. But their are fish with fins that look and work like legs in a transition like state.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104964 May 28, 2013
How stupid can you be wrote:
<quoted text>What a nut!
God created ALL, Not the other way around!
Buy a clue!
Got evidence? Thanks for your superstitious opinion.
You are effectively calling most scientists, stupid nuts.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104965 May 28, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
If schools aren't "allowed" to incorporate decency, ethics, respect for and Of others in daily routines, schools (that don't already), need to teach PHYSICS (again), even if Science itself, has yet to be able to answer ALL the questions all the time.
Such would redeem at least having some Faith in hope in future generations, because at least they might realize then, that until such a time when Science "knows all" (because it doesn't), it is good (Not bad) to treat others decently, ethically and respectfully in the meantime!
Ironic that so many of your posts show a massive amount of disrespect.
Is it mandatory that believers be hypocritical?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#104966 May 28, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
If schools aren't "allowed" to incorporate decency, ethics, respect for and Of others in daily routines, schools (that don't already), need to teach PHYSICS (again), even if Science itself, has yet to be able to answer ALL the questions all the time.
Such would redeem at least having some Faith in hope in future generations, because at least they might realize then, that until such a time when Science "knows all" (because it doesn't), it is good (Not bad) to treat others decently, ethically and respectfully in the meantime!
Stoning people who disagree with you is decency? Stoning children for "bad mouthing" you is decency? You are an unethical person if you think that.
GWB

Roseville, CA

#104967 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a simple question... Where did the intelligence for reproduction ( not life ) come from?
Bible approves of the raping of female children to produce offspring. The females who are not virgins are put to death. Why? Does your God approve of pedophiles?
Numbers 31:7-18

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104969 May 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok let me make it simple as possible.. There has to be somewhere in all that overwhelming evidence a clear intermediate... Perhaps a fossil of a rhino with it's horn in half development or a spices of bat with half developed wings as evolutionist claim mutated from it's fingers... Good luck...
Looking for a crockoduck?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104970 May 28, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>Darkness hates the Light!
If they seen the Light, they'd be on here posting against
everything they're posting for now!
That scares them!
God Bless :-)
Not scared of your mythological beings at all.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104971 May 28, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it was clear that there were 12 apostles. When one killed himself, he was replaced, to keep it at 12 to represent the 12 tribes of Israel.
He showed Himself to Mary at the tomb, then He visited the apostles. Thomas wasn't present so He came back to make sure all 12 were present. Mary wasn't present at that meeting. However, I'm not opposed to the idea that Mary was His wife. That is very possible.
Can you eleborate on those last 2 sentences. The haze of this weekend is fading and I'm playing catch up. If you have already, then ignore this, as I said, I'm catching up.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#104972 May 28, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Ironic that so many of your posts show a massive amount of disrespect.
Is it mandatory that believers be hypocritical?
that was to someone else, but your comment leads me to ask your opinion on something relevant. first of all, I am glad to get back on topix after being too busy and distracted for too long, and to find you here. second I respect your opinion, though I would feel free to disagree on some things.

I often encounter a very nasty atheist who attacks even agnostic atheists (like myself) and agnostics as if we are same as believers in some religion or other. The only thing he tolerates are his own views, which are usually expressed by calling others liars and using other insults and false accusations.

Even when he is in an argument with someone I disagree with, I still doubt if every believer is what I would call a "liar" (someone who knowingly tells an untruth). And I despise his general arrogance and egotism. I feel it more necessary to denounce his style and his arrogant views that he knows there is no God (and that anyone who doubts it is a liar) than to argue with the silly fundies. the socalled atheist is discrediting atheism - even the hard form (the one that claims to know there is no God)- by being such a nasty jerk.

I think I can attack him as not being representative of decent atheists, of whatever variety, without siding with the fundies. I tell them I disagree with them, but that this commenter does not represent most atheists.

Some other atheist types - a few, not many - think it is somehow disloyal of me to criticize a fellow atheist, no matter how nasty he is. But I like to see the agnostic atheist position represented by the wisest and nicest of commenters, and even a more "strong" atheist position argued by someone who makes a better case for it, and does so in a rational and not nasty way.

All this is happening over on the atheist forum, now, since I returned there before coming here - a couple of weeks ago.

You seem to be one of the most sensible commenters on here, and I think you are an agnostic atheist, as it is sensibly defined: not believing but not claiming to know with certain evidence that there is no such thing as a god at all (especially since the word god is not even very clearly defined in such a way as to limit the possibilities).

I think one god is impossible, and that I know it cannot exist, and that is an allgoodallpowerful god. I think one god has to exist - which is that it is everything that exists, defined as god in a sort of superpantheism definition - with not much known about it, or even knowable. and with few consequences, other than we are part of it and therefore should be as good and kind as possible.

I know you are busy arguing with the true believers, and this is outside the usual scope of this thread, but you are wiser than most of the atheists on the atheist forum, and I like discussions with you better than with most folks I find over there, even the best of them.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104973 May 28, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I deem you a bigot because you fit the criteria. Should I invent a new word to save your feelings?
The reason you cite for men only in the priesthood is exactly why Brigham said their can be no blacks in the priesthood. He felt they were not descendants of the white leaders of your religion, thus they were not father-son passed down the status of the priesthood.
You described the priesthood and I could not find any criteria a woman could not handle other than being a son.
If a man can actually get revelations worthy of having the church trust their claims, why can't women?
Can men be on the welfare committee?
So sad you cannot understand human property concepts. Think of how slaves were traded. They were workers/helpers, just as you describe the women. I really see zero difference. Can you show a difference?
Yes, many cultures of ancient times had the same traditions of your religion. It is as if no god was needed to make these traditions, yet your bible sure acts as if they are the rules of god.
Now, how many of my points are you going to ignore?
Call me what you wish. One last quote on the topic of women and the priesthood.

Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said:

“Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program. Women have a very prominent place in this Church. Men hold the priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a tremendous place in this Church. They have their own organization. It was started in 1842 by the Prophet Joseph Smith, called the Relief Society, because its initial purpose was to administer help to those in need. It has grown to be, I think, the largest women’s organization in the world... They have their own offices, their own presidency, their own board. That reaches down to the smallest unit of the Church everywhere in the world...

“The men hold the priesthood, yes. But my wife is my companion. In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are co-equals in this life in a great enterprise.”

What do you mean as I describe women? Are you going to try to turn what I brought up from other cultures, ancient and current, as how I feel about women? Please.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 13 min Tollesboro Guy 151,157
KY What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... 16 min JOB LESS 1,331
Kevin Disney Central Elementary School 29 min Parent 3
New club in Barbourville? 2 hr Tyler 45
joann gregory 2 hr grimes 3
hp desktop with 2 hr seth 2
KY Hundreds of birds die in western Ky. (Jan '11) 4 hr pusherman_ 81,595
•••
•••
Barbourville Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Barbourville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Barbourville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Barbourville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••