Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 161114 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.

curious

Winter Garden, FL

#108156 Jul 7, 2013
Spaceship earth wrote:
<quoted text>
What reason would an atheist become God fearing? Some of the God fearing christians have converted to Islam and Judaism. Some of the God fearing Christians have abandoned the belief in God and become Atheist. So I don't think you have made a good point for a belief in a God.
Most christians believe that Armageddon will happen between now and 2018. If it does not within next ten years will you still believe in God?
Those who have a desire to know God will seek him.
The Parable of the Sower gives a simple and accurate assesment of the human condition.
Christ made mention that all who called him Lord would not enter into heaven and that there would be a FALLING AWAY FROM THE FAITH.
To you these events may come as a surprise,to me,they are not surprising,they were foretold.
I have no idea how you came to conclude what most Christians may or may not believe...
I do not think or worry about Armageddon.
My faith and beliefs are not based on any of the topics you have mentioned.
Many are called.but few respond.
I believe that your questions should be addressed to those in a better position to provide you with the answer you seek.
Studies show that 25 % of atheists attend religious services on a weekly basis.
They are searching for or fear somrthing
They must have very good reasons for feeling or believing that way... Maybe you should address your question to them.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#108157 Jul 7, 2013
beardie wrote:
<quoted text>
How does nature do it? Through evolution. Two genders only evolve respective of one another, because they are AROUND each other. Reproduction (not to be confused with sexual intercourse) is the survival of the species, and that is it. If you have trouble understanding this, then perhaps you should spend more time gardening. Life will do its damnest (sp?) to reproduce and survive. Example: If you have a greenhouse full of one gender of the same plant (let's say female), some of those plants will actually start growing male parts in order to reproduce. It doesn't grow a new male plant, it equips ONE plant with the essential parts, as its only concern is producing more plants, regardless of gender. Outside interference can do nothing to stop it, it happens on its own. The human species would be capable of the same thing, as witnessed in the depleting male sex gene.
Comparing plants and humans is a LOOOOOOOOONG stretch.You musta played 1st base on your baseball team.

Thanks for your answer. I did some research.
Turns out that those who arrived at the same conclusions as you did,did so,not by observing the plants,but by smoking them...

I also talked to a number of jail wardens.
Although their jails are full of men,no one has ever observed one of these men developing and growing female parts
Some may wannabe,but it don't work that way...

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108158 Jul 7, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you do know such a thing,whether you post it under Spectacles or Chromiuman.
I do not need to call you a liar.
The lies you post,under either of the monokers you use,speak for themselves.
Anyhow,since you and I know that you are lying,it makes little difference...
Poor curious. If you weren't such a vile, hateful, little monster I'd probably feel actual sympathy for you. But, your incessant false accusations, insane ramblings threats, and just downright nastiness makes that nearly impossible.

Still, I'd like to know... what is it that you think I'm lying about?

And..you just admitted that you know Chromiuman and I are not the same person. Yet, you still make that accusation. Why is that? What do you think I stand to benefit from posting as two separate people?
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
...
On the lighter side,to show that I harbor no hard feelings,let me extend this invitation,,
My name is Cliff,,,,Drop over sometime...
See what I mean? A rotten little monster, you are. Full of hate and wickedness.
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
ON A SERIOUS NOTE, I would suggest that you and your family attend religious services....
God desires that all be saved.....Who knows what the results might be if you gave him the opportunity to reveal himself....
Been there, done that. I've told you this before. I grew up believing in your god. I started questioning things when I was around 17.
My life has been improving ever since.
WeNeedGodBackinA merica

United States

#108159 Jul 7, 2013
If you feel "dog tired" at night, maybe it's because you "growled" all day.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108160 Jul 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Here is the definition of fact by websters. Now tell us how evolution does not fit this definition?

Definition of FACT
1
: a thing done: as
a obsolete : feat
b : crime <accessory after the fact>
c archaic : action
2
archaic : performance, doing
3
: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4
a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>
b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact
: in truth
I didn't say evolution wasn't fact. I said we didn't come from apes. Just because evolution can occur within certain species doesn't mean we came from apes. That link I disagree with.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108161 Jul 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>What you fail to understand about what is considered a fact is, a fact might not be the truth.
Evolution is considered fact by the scientific community. Evolution is considered fact by the courts. Now lets say hypothetically that evolution is not the truth. This does not mean it is not considered a fact by the definition of the word.

Now you might consider god a fact, but god has zero evidence, so it really does not fit the definition of fact.

Now do I need to spell out what a scientific theory is?
Nothing in that definition says something requires evidence to be a fact. So based off of this definition, why doesn't God fit it?

But it does say that something is in actual existence to be a fact. Doesn't that mean truth?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108162 Jul 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>And what drives play? Instincts. Play is practice. This is why kids play. Play hones skills. Skills need to be sharp for survival. Survival is key for evolution.
Not in all cases. Some play just to play. Have you never had or seen an animal that just played?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108163 Jul 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I am not sure any species of animal hunts its own species for practice. I am quite sure when an animal hunts its own species, it has a reason, most usually to protect its territory, as I have said and you have continually ignored and diverted.

Observations of apes shows they will hunt down tribes in their surrounding territory, kill them and even eat them.
The hypothesis on this is, the cannibalism is to strike fear in the survivors to keep them out of the territory.

Now, just what about homosexuality is harming anyone to the point of comparing it to cannibalism?
You have to keep up here. If you are going to say that homosexuality is ok because animals do it, which makes it natural. Then by your logic you would be ok with humans killing someone from another "tribe" and eating them in front of the survivors. Because it's natural.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108164 Jul 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Again, I never said humans should do what the animal kingdom does.
Again, you claimed homosexuality was not natural, I showed that it is by giving examples in nature.
Now if you wish to show homosexuality as immoral, then you need to show a reason why. You have yet to do so.

I can certainly agree that what is natural is not moral in any absolute manner. But that is not showing homosexuality as immoral.

Do you even know how to demonstrate what constitutes immorality?
You tried by claiming homosexuality was not natural, but that was proved wrong. So try another reason.
Moral is not a word I have used one single time in this thread. And no, just because animals get horny and satisfy themselves in a homosexual nature, does not make it natural. Nature would not survive unless the procreation all urges and powers had a purpose. So just because an animal gets his rocks off this way only proves how powerful the urge is, not that nature intended it to be that way.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108165 Jul 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>When the theory of evolution was first hypothesized has no relevancy in the fact it is a sound scientific theory that is thus considered fact.
The concept is considered a fact because all evidence found relating to the hypnosis confirms it as true.
Now if you wish to show it is wrong, then you must produce evidence that shows it as wrong. Claiming their is not enough missing links is not evidence at all. A lack of evidence is not evidence. This is why no one can prove god does not exist. Their is zero evidence against a god existing.
Now their is no evidence showing a god exists, so it cannot be considered a scientific theory.
Evidence can be shown some of the claims of god are false. This is what I often show in my case against god.

So you might consider a 'hypothesis' a hunch, but a 'scientific theory' is not a hunch.
I didn't mention any particular subject when discussing facts and theory. What started us talking about fact and theory though was someone saying it was fact that people are born gay. To which I said the scientific community has said there is no conclusive evidence that confirms this. I didn't make that up. You are free to look it up yourself.
There are some scientists that say yes and some no. But if all are using the scientific method correctly, they would come up with the same conclusion, but this has not happened.

But if you want to talk about evolution, there is no conclusive evidence that man came from apes either. There is a missing link that keeps anyone from calling that fact. There is some evidence that many call compelling, but not conclusive.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108166 Jul 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>You probably have all the bishops of the church wondering why they even let you in the door. Your total lack of education is something more fit for Westboro.
Lack of education in what subject kitty?
I've never had any problem with my education at church. Maybe you misplaced or misused your insult.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#108167 Jul 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to keep up here. If you are going to say that homosexuality is ok because animals do it, which makes it natural. Then by your logic you would be ok with humans killing someone from another "tribe" and eating them in front of the survivors. Because it's natural.
No.

I'll jump in on this one. I'm not sure what the other poster actually said but I don't know anyone who advances the argument that BECAUSE animals do it, then it's OK.

Here is the actual argument. Many bigots argue that homosexuality is not natural, its a behavioral choice. We point to studies showing animals doing it *in support of* our argument that it is natural.

"In support of" is different from "because of". For example, the extremely close DNA relationship between humans and chimps *supports* the fact that we evolved from common ancestors. But it does not mean we evolved from common ancestors *because of* our close DNA match with chimps.

Different lines of evidence come together to lend support to an idea or to go against it. All lines of evidence lead to the fact that homosexuality is not a chosen sexual orientation. The fact that animals do it too is *part of* that body of evidence.

See what I mean?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108168 Jul 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Moral is not a word I have used one single time in this thread. And no, just because animals get horny and satisfy themselves in a homosexual nature, does not make it natural. Nature would not survive unless the procreation all urges and powers had a purpose. So just because an animal gets his rocks off this way only proves how powerful the urge is, not that nature intended it to be that way.
"Moral" is a judgement you make all the time - you just don't spell it with 5 letters.
Play is natural, procreation is natural. You are making the argument against recreational sex with your spouse because it is not strictly for procreation and it is therefore immoral and unnatural.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#108169 Jul 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't mention any particular subject when discussing facts and theory. What started us talking about fact and theory though was someone saying it was fact that people are born gay. To which I said the scientific community has said there is no conclusive evidence that confirms this. I didn't make that up. You are free to look it up yourself.
There are some scientists that say yes and some no. But if all are using the scientific method correctly, they would come up with the same conclusion, but this has not happened.
But if you want to talk about evolution, there is no conclusive evidence that man came from apes either. There is a missing link that keeps anyone from calling that fact. There is some evidence that many call compelling, but not conclusive.
No.

The scientific evidence dispels the idea that homosexuality is chosen. You are correct that it does not prove conclusively that no choice is involved.

Human sexuality is largely a social concept as well as biological. It is immensely complex. That is why there is disagreement.

But for the most part the scientific community is overwhelmingly against the bigot's argument that gays choose to be gay. It ain't that simple, bro. Sorry to break it to ya.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108170 Jul 7, 2013
happy wrote:
<quoted text>
U all are in serious denial. This post generating so many comments is what is amazing. Lol. GOD IS REAL. If He were not .. U would not b here..:-)
Set down the bottle and back away....
WeNeedGodBackinA merica

United States

#108171 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever you are trying?
Really isn't working.
wtf

Shelbiana, KY

#108172 Jul 8, 2013
WeNeedGodBackinAmerica wrote:
Whatever you are trying?
Really isn't working.
That sure will not work.
Morgan Freeman

Casey, IL

#108173 Jul 8, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Comparing plants and humans is a LOOOOOOOOONG stretch.You musta played 1st base on your baseball team.
Thanks for your answer. I did some research.
Turns out that those who arrived at the same conclusions as you did,did so,not by observing the plants,but by smoking them...
I also talked to a number of jail wardens.
Although their jails are full of men,no one has ever observed one of these men developing and growing female parts
Some may wannabe,but it don't work that way...
You are a complete idiot.
How stupid can you be

Georgetown, KY

#108174 Jul 8, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists never cease to amaze me. This is one of the dumbest things I've read this week. And that's saying a lot.
Evolution is the study of how animals have changed over time.
Atheist is rejection of the claim that gods exist.
Do you see how they are not the same thing at all?
Many Christians call themselves patriots and like American flags. Does that mean American flags are Christian flags? Many scientists are atheist. Does that mean science is atheism?
Any scientist, that cannot see God's handiwork IN His creation, and/or tries hard to deny that there is a Creating God... is an Atheist!
Anti-Christ if you will...
Our American flag WAS Designed by God fearing Christian people, and
sewn By a Christian woman... So Yes!
God Bless America!
How stupid can you be

Georgetown, KY

#108175 Jul 8, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
"Blah, blah, blah...."
"How stupid can you be?"
With every post you show us how truly ignorant you are.
You could be the poster boy for atheism.
Keep up the good work.
No....
The ignorance is on YOUR part!
Every Godless post you make... Proves the God you hate
To be True... That must suck for you, as you cannot say
jack... without proving US, and God right!
We still pray for you!

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
Andera Bays In Jail 24 min citizen of the co... 9
Looking for Debbie lawson 32 min Rebelguy10 8
Jacob tate? 33 min Big juicy 2
Bad Check Question???? 37 min Been There 8
Sonny hamblin 1 hr Geared 40
oasis pizza sued 2 hr John 13
{keep a word drop a word} (Oct '11) 2 hr Breezy _Soul 3,985

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages