Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 20 comments on the Feb 10, 2010, The Courier-Journal story 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.

“I'll think about it.”

Since: Nov 07

central Florida

#108096 Jul 6, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>My Bible reads this way...
.
83:16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name,
O LORD.
83:17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yes, let
them be put to shame, and perish:
83:18 That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is]
JEHOVAH,[art] the most high over all the earth.
It is amusing when Christians fight over what they believe primitive superstitious goatherders wrote.

“I'll think about it.”

Since: Nov 07

central Florida

#108097 Jul 6, 2013
How stupid can you be wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong again!
All that typing of lies, that's been proven wrong many times, by many others on this thread... makes you a bigger tard than Mikey!
Good day, go spread yer lies to others like you... we know the truth!
LOL! The "truth" bites you on the ass and you shoo it away so you can cling to your delusion. You are funny.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#108098 Jul 6, 2013
How stupid can you be wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong again!
All that typing of lies, that's been proven wrong many times, by many others on this thread... makes you a bigger tard than Mikey!
Good day, go spread yer lies to others like you... we know the truth!
I give you facts, you give me a naked assertion. What part of my post was not factually true?

The only mention of god in the founding documents of this nation is "nature's god". By that, Jefferson meant the god of reason. A deist god. If you think otherwise then you don't know anything about Thomas Jefferson.

Don't just reply with a naked reversal of my argument. Don't just say "You're wrong, I'm right". Demonstrate your opinion with evidence.

"They still believed in a God who played an active role in the affairs of the world but they no longer believed in such doctrines as original sin, the infallibility of Scripture, or Christ's sacrificial atonement. Most had also rejected the virgin birth and the Trinity. Rather than subordinating reason to Biblical revelation, they subjected revelation to reason, discarding those parts of the Bible they found unreasonable. The influence of John Locke and the 18th-century Whig tradition had transformed their concept of God. As Frazer points out, no Calvinist would have made Thomas Jefferson's claim that "nature's God" had created man with an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

If, moreover, the founders had been evangelicals on a religious mission, surely they would have mentioned Jesus Christ in the Declaration, the Constitution, or The Federalist. Jefferson drafted the Declaration in the language of theistic rationalism but was artful enough to make it palatable to a wide array of readers, many of whom, as he knew, would be Christians."

https://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id...

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108099 Jul 6, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
When have I lied?
Says I,You have lied every time that you have intentionally falsified that which I have posted,as you well know.
But that was to be expected. Since I know you lied and you know you lied,then your denying that you lied does not change the fact that both you and I both know that you lied...
I know no such thing. You calling me a liar does not make me one. Cite a specific example of me "lying" or choke on your accusation.
Isn't bearing false witness a sin? My, how your god must be ashamed of you.
curious wrote:
<quoted text>...
I know,but the fact that all of you seem to be seeking to find out how our minds work and a desire to be provided evidence of God's existence points to your search for something that your Atheistic beliefs are not able to provide you...
So, if you know we're not the same person (as you just admitted), why do you constantly make that accusation?
Again, isn't bearing false witness a sin? My, how your god must be ashamed of you.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108100 Jul 6, 2013
care8741 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheesh, don't get your turban in a knot! I did not say someone was stopping Christians from silently praying; although I'm sure that's coming. The public school system is stopping Christians from speaking openly about their beliefs...
No, it's not. No one is gagging Xians. Religion just can't be part of a public school function including speeches given at school assemblies.
care8741 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am positive if a the grad would have mentioned ahla or budah, there would have been no opposition.
Really? What makes you so sure of that? Show me an example of someone praising another god in an approved public school speech. As a side note, I don't know what "ahla" or "budah" is (I guess you meant "Allah" and "Buddha" but haven't figured out how to really use the internet yet).
As another side note, Buddha (if that's who you meant) isn't a god.
care8741 wrote:
<quoted text>
... So, if the public school system is going to continue to push evolutionism down american children's throats, they might as well be pushing Creationism, too. Science backs it as well. Look it up.
What science? I'll play this game with you. Give me your evidence.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108101 Jul 6, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I give you facts, you give me a naked assertion. What part of my post was not factually true?
The only mention of god in the founding documents of this nation is "nature's god". By that, Jefferson meant the god of reason. A deist god. If you think otherwise then you don't know anything about Thomas Jefferson.
Don't just reply with a naked reversal of my argument. Don't just say "You're wrong, I'm right". Demonstrate your opinion with evidence.
"They still believed in a God who played an active role in the affairs of the world but they no longer believed in such doctrines as original sin, the infallibility of Scripture, or Christ's sacrificial atonement. Most had also rejected the virgin birth and the Trinity. Rather than subordinating reason to Biblical revelation, they subjected revelation to reason, discarding those parts of the Bible they found unreasonable. The influence of John Locke and the 18th-century Whig tradition had transformed their concept of God. As Frazer points out, no Calvinist would have made Thomas Jefferson's claim that "nature's God" had created man with an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
If, moreover, the founders had been evangelicals on a religious mission, surely they would have mentioned Jesus Christ in the Declaration, the Constitution, or The Federalist. Jefferson drafted the Declaration in the language of theistic rationalism but was artful enough to make it palatable to a wide array of readers, many of whom, as he knew, would be Christians."
https://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id...
"But, but... Glenn Beck says all the Founding Fathers were Christians and they wanted the U.S. to be a Christian nation. He even cried when he told me so!"

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#108102 Jul 6, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
"But, but... Glenn Beck says all the Founding Fathers were Christians and they wanted the U.S. to be a Christian nation. He even cried when he told me so!"
Well hell, that changes everything. And he's a Mormon too, so he CANNOT lie!

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108103 Jul 6, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a complex question that you tried to answer with a Cutnpaste from yahoo answeres.
That havinfg failed,you inserted ape penises and vaginas into the topic.
That failed.
Now you state what we already knew.
Only a far superior intellect can answer the question that neither Science ,evolution, Einstein,Hawkins or dawkins or human intelligence has an answer for.
We knew the answer all along.
The loving god who creared us and he by whom all things were created,Our lord, Jesus Christ,they have and are the answer
You claimed atheists had nothing to say on the matter, I proved you wrong. Of course noting we say will satisfy you, but that is another topic.
Now tell us how god made the sexes?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108104 Jul 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I went back to Webster and it seems my understanding of the definition of these terms is just fine. So I'm still right that fact should be taught as fact and theory should be taught as theory.
If you want to know who I was talking to on this topic, read through the discussion you joined.
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
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#108105 Jul 6, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
It is amusing when Christians fight over what they believe primitive superstitious goatherders wrote.
Aren't you being a little rough on goatherders? After all, there were several contributions both by individuals and church councils that decided what was to go into the Bible, especially the New Testament. Just because someone is socalled educated does not mean he is not indoctrinated with superstition. And people who are out with nature and face its realities can sometimes see the silliness of Biblical teachings just by using common sense and seeing the cruelties in the world around them.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108106 Jul 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
My definitions are fine. My use of these words are fine. You like to say that because there is some evidence for something, it is fact or truth.
There have been many innocent people sentenced to death because of court cases that have evidence that point to that person's guilt.
We all know that different evidence can emerge in the world of science, and then a theory may change or become obsolete.
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?

havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#108107 Jul 6, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Well hell, that changes everything. And he's a Mormon too, so he CANNOT lie!
don't you think it is a bit unfair when the atheists/agnostics/skeptics on this site are extremely intelligent and not typical of all unbelievers, and the believers on this site seem to be among the most fundie and superstitious of believers? do you think we could recruit any decent, tolerant believers, and any nasty stupid atheists (i.e. Skeptic, who is making a big fool of himself and discrediting atheism on other forums) to balance out the discussion?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108108 Jul 6, 2013
WeNeedGodBackinAmerica wrote:
To confused
Who is you guys
Maybe if you registered and used a consistent name, we would not be confused at who you were.
Humans use names for a reason. Be a part of society and use a consistent name, otherwise you are a nobody.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108109 Jul 6, 2013
Known Fact wrote:
<quoted text>
Psalm 83:16-18 will answer your question:
16 Fill their faces with dishonor,
That people may search for your name, O Jehovah.
17 O may they be ashamed and be disturbed for all times,
And may they become abashed and perish;
18 That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth.
Why is it so hard for you guys to give a straight answer?
I assume it keeps you from directly addressing the question and thus allows you to keep in denial of the inconsistencies of your religion.
Denial is the key to faith.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108110 Jul 6, 2013
Known Fact wrote:
<quoted text>
You would not understand a straight answer....even if you did understand it you would reject or ignore it!
Why not just try that hypothesis out for a change to test it?
But thanks for at least admitting you refuse to give a straight answer.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#108111 Jul 6, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Well hell, that changes everything. And he's a Mormon too, so he CANNOT lie!
and thanks for your comment on my pantheism thread. I replied to you. I trust you get the point I am making - that I encourage any attempt to promote a better notion of God (pantheism, which does not imply a good or bad god, since it is everything) and better notions of what a religion should be about (promoting ethical behavior, mostly kindness in all its forms, based on intelligence and knowledge of situations - and especially including political, social, economic, economic matters).

I even am friendly toward non-right-wing Mormons, and toward the branch of the Joseph Smith religion that has evolved in the Midwest - Community of Christ Church - and its most progressive reformers, many of them my friends, in this town. But I am all the more hostile toward the Fundamentalist LDS (the statutory rape cult, allegedly) and even rightwing Mormons and self-satisfied semi-centrist ones (Romney types). Beck of course is one of the nutcase rightwingers, and has that in common with too many people in other denominations and other religions.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108112 Jul 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they do. But animals play too
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.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108113 Jul 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I was speaking of cannibalism of the same specie in the animal kingdom. Totally relevant.
And no, I wasn't talking about hunting for criminals. I was saying that we should not copy the animal kingdom and hunt for other innocent humans as practice to hone our skills for when we may need to hunt for a human.(And I would certainly hope we wouldn't be hunting for humans for food - another thing that we should not do just because the animal kingdom does it)
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?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#108114 Jul 6, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! The "truth" bites you on the ass and you shoo it away so you can cling to your delusion. You are funny.
the rightwing nutcase fundies on this thread are so extremist that they will never see reason. I keep looking for anyone here who is religious and not a rightwing nut, and anyone here who is irreligious and not highly intelligent. Cannot find such persons. I know they exist in the real world.

I would prefer, however, to have intelligent conversations with the nonbelievers on here, rather than wasting time arguing with fundies. If there were any centrist on here it would be worth making rational arguments to try to appeal to them, but I see few centrists either. So could we discuss things among ourselves sometimes, instead of constantly being mired down in replying to the fundies?

I would be interested in knowing more about your own views on various issues. I am an agnostic (not claiming to know) atheist (not believing in a God), and also agnostic and nonbelieving with regard to an afterlife and creation theories and the nature of the universe and a whole set of cosmic questions. I also think it makes more sense to not believe, than to believe - but it also makes more sense not to claim to know, than to claim to know. One has no burden of proof if one does not claim to know.

I also have great doubts about free will, and am inclined to believe in a rather complicated view of determinism. Some of what gets determined by prior causes comes through our thought processes, and sometimes it seems we are making free choices, but we have not evaluated all the things that cause us to do as we do, or to want what we want. So I am opposed to blame in the usual sense, but all the more in favor of detention and deterrence so people cannot hurt each other. That does not stop me from having visceral reactions of assigning "blame" and "guilt" - but it makes me generally oppose the death penalty, for example, and favor life imprisonment under relatively humane conditions, as a prevention - less than punishment. I am just as angry about injustices as anyone else - but who and what caused the bad person to become so bad? That philosophical question would kick in, despite my feeling of hostility to someone - like Zimmerman, for example. He should be prevented from doing it again, however.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108115 Jul 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I was speaking of cannibalism of the same specie in the animal kingdom. Totally relevant.
And no, I wasn't talking about hunting for criminals. I was saying that we should not copy the animal kingdom and hunt for other innocent humans as practice to hone our skills for when we may need to hunt for a human.(And I would certainly hope we wouldn't be hunting for humans for food - another thing that we should not do just because the animal kingdom does it)
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.

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
Ashley&kim 9 min Ash 1
Kim Helton 12 min Useless 4
looking for work up flat lick 35 min listerhill 1
~~Keep A Word~~Drop A Word Game. (Jun '10) 1 hr texas pete 658
Mike smith 1 hr BROCKS 3
Courtney at Walmart 2 hr Holly 4
Where can you sign WET vote Petition ??? 3 hr excited 12
Teacher arrested Mon shopper 5
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]