Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 131,006

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.

Full Story

“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.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#108116 Jul 6, 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.
OK, that was to a fundie. But I want to ask you directly whether you make any judgment calls about evolution and survival, and survival skills. I can accept that it is how things are - but not that it is a good way to be. I think the entire set up of nature, predator and prey, harsh conditions, fragile lifeforms, etc, is a rotten system. That is a major argument against the existence of a goodpowerful God. So it should also be something that is severely criticized as a bad actuality, even if one thinks science can explain it, or if one does not think it can be explained (my view). I think that there is enough good stuff in this world for us lucky ones that we want to emphasize how nice it is, but that is not how it is for most lifeforms, and not how it is for us, many times during our lives, and at the end of our lives if we die in pain, and with a sense of loss or grief. I sometimes detect among the science types a sort of approval implied in their descriptions of the world as they think they know it.

I am with those who do not approve, and would not approve, no matter what the explanation - of how the part of the universe that I am aware of - functions. I do not like words such as awesome, or elegant, or anything else that implies admiration of the whole or the cruel parts. If a creator god of this mess would be a lousy rat, then nature itself it also a lousy rat, to use the slang term the expresses my emotional reaction to all the pain and suffering in the world. I do not think it is nature's fault, however, since I do not think nature has intentionality. But I do blame scientists who are too elated about what they think they know about the world, as if the intellectual grasp of its workings could ever make up for the rotten cruelty of the workings themselves.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108117 Jul 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Your definition is a hunch if it can be totally uprooted and reversed by the findings of another piece of evidence that wasn't available at the time the theory was developed. It would be reversing what had been taught as "fact" for who knows how long, but yet that doesn't make it any less wrong.
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.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108118 Jul 6, 2013
Known act wrote:
<quoted text>
The RELIGION of Evolution should be left out as well!
Why do I call evolution a RELGION is simply because it takes a lot more FAITH to believe in evolution when there is absolutely no evidence to support it. It is totally based on someone's imagination. FAIRY TALE! END OF STORY Separate tax money from fiction!
Now you claim their is absolutely no evidence for evolution?
I have no idea what you think "evidence" is, so I really have no idea where to start with this.

I think the fossil evidence found shows, evolution of animals and plants occur. It is clear that in the distant past, animals lived that look very close to what the animals that lived after them looked like. This happened in a progression that confirms the idea all the way to modern humans. We humans look very much like apes, and even have extremely close DNA relations.
Other than a larger brain, less hair, and walking upright, their is little to nothing different about us and apes.

We can see adaptations being naturally selected. This can be tested and seen virtually before our eyes in viruses and bacteria.

I get that you cannot put the pieces of evidence together to conclude animals and plants evolve, but to claim their is no evidence that points to the theory being true is just an extreme denial of the facts.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#108119 Jul 6, 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 think you mean your case for not believing in a god, and especially for not believing some of the assertions about particular gods. You can make good cases on many specific issues about particular gods, and also against belief in most gods.(I personally enjoy Hermes and Hestia, and find them less objectionable than most - also Demeter in some instances).

I agree that one usually cannot prove either the existence or nonexistence of something one sensibly could call God. The two exceptions are the God that exists and could sensibly be called G - which is "all that exists." It has no special attributes, such as goodness, or powers, such as saving souls. It is big enough to be worthy of the name God, and it certainly exists by definition (whatever existence is!). It is just pantheism, and might as well be atheism of course, compared to the usual nonsensical views of what a god is.

The one I feel that I know cannot exist is an allgoodallpowerful god that created the universe and the laws of nature, and has awareness of what is going on, and has intentionality. The allgood part has to be left out if the other aspects are asserted.
Because of suffering. Such a powerful god cannot be allgood. only ak's think so, or say so, mostly in fear of hell and in hopes of flattery getting them somewhere. like up in clouds in an afterlife on the righthand of Jesus, or such fancies.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#108120 Jul 6, 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.
that was to du what. My objection to some homosexuality is that some very gorgeous and nice and intelligent men are gay - but if they will just be good friends with women, and maybe go to an opera or ballet with us once in a while, they can do as they wish sexually as long as they do not hurt anyone. Women deprived of highly attractive real men to actually associate with can at least look, or go to Patrick Dempsey movies.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108121 Jul 6, 2013
care8741 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you ever lie to your Mommy, or steal a cookie, when you were a wee child? If you did not know that lieing and stealing are wrong, would your conscience make you feel bad about it? No. Who would be your responsible judge? Your parents. Ahhh, but how can your parents judge you, and deal out an appropriate punishment, if you did not know those things are wrong? Well, of course they should teach you the right way. It's the same way with Father God and the Bible. Father God is our Judge when our conscience doesn't catch us. As we all know, many people have many differnt beliefs on what's right and wrong. Of course if we think something is right, our conscience will not catch us. So, just so we know what is right and wrong, there is a book called the Bible. That is God's way of teaching us the right way. There is not one thing that happens to us during this life that has not been discussed in it.
I do not pretend to know the minds of Atheists, nor do I want to! I don't know the minds of anybody but myself, and even that is ?able at times. Only God knows our minds. He knew us even before He sent us down to this planet. Believe it or not, He want's us all to come back to Him. The question is, will we choose to???
So you do not wish to know the mind of an atheist, yet continue to claim to know the mind of an atheist and ask to know what my reasoning is. Can you say some more contradictory statements so I can be sure you are a complete......

Children do feel guilt. They might lie, but that does not mean they feel no guilt. Natural guilt will not keep you moral unless you understand this emotion. Part of the understanding is, the emotion is burdensome. If one tries to be good, it makes one feel good because his guilt emotion is not full of burden. And just who does not wish to feel good and guilt free?

Morality evolves with society and is passed down as well as the innate emotional instincts that drive us towards what might be moral. Absolutes are rare, so if you are thinking in some black and white terms, you might not understand this concept.
I know the religious mind is often of absolutist mentality, so you are likely one of them.

Our society would be chaos if no one had any moral drives. So it is reasonable to assume evolution put in place some mechanisms to help us be moral. Again, no absolute Utopian mechanism. Guilt is a mechanism.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108122 Jul 6, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> that was to du what. My objection to some homosexuality is that some very gorgeous and nice and intelligent men are gay - but if they will just be good friends with women, and maybe go to an opera or ballet with us once in a while, they can do as they wish sexually as long as they do not hurt anyone. Women deprived of highly attractive real men to actually associate with can at least look, or go to Patrick Dempsey movies.
Those guys you speak of are just less competition for me. But I do get agitated when I am shot down by a girl just because she does not like men. But then I realize I get shot down for all sorts of reasons, so I should not dwell on this reason.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108123 Jul 6, 2013
care8741 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you ever lie to your Mommy, or steal a cookie, when you were a wee child? If you did not know that lieing and stealing are wrong, would your conscience make you feel bad about it? No. Who would be your responsible judge? Your parents. Ahhh, but how can your parents judge you, and deal out an appropriate punishment, if you did not know those things are wrong? Well, of course they should teach you the right way. It's the same way with Father God and the Bible. Father God is our Judge when our conscience doesn't catch us. As we all know, many people have many differnt beliefs on what's right and wrong. Of course if we think something is right, our conscience will not catch us. So, just so we know what is right and wrong, there is a book called the Bible. That is God's way of teaching us the right way. There is not one thing that happens to us during this life that has not been discussed in it.
I do not pretend to know the minds of Atheists, nor do I want to! I don't know the minds of anybody but myself, and even that is ?able at times. Only God knows our minds. He knew us even before He sent us down to this planet. Believe it or not, He want's us all to come back to Him. The question is, will we choose to???
Mom and dad can figure out stealing is wrong because of the consequences of stealing are not conducive to long term happiness.
It is instinctive to punish the person who takes from you in some way. Society would not prosper if stealing was the norm and condoned.
It is instinctive for the child to follow the instructions of the parent. If this did not happen, children would not learn how to behave in a conducive society well. Human existence is dependent upon society cohesiveness.
No god needed to ensure a certain amount of cohesiveness.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108124 Jul 6, 2013
care8741 wrote:
<quoted text>

I do not pretend to know the minds of Atheists, nor do I want to! I don't know the minds of anybody but myself, and even that is ?able at times. Only God knows our minds. He knew us even before He sent us down to this planet. Believe it or not, He want's us all to come back to Him. The question is, will we choose to???
I doubt you even know your own mind very well. Most or all of us do not completely know our own mind. But we can try to always learn more of our mind and of others mind. Ignoring what others think, and why they think it, is just intentional ignorance that may cause problems in our society. Think about it.
Understanding instincts through evolution helps us to understand the mind. Adding god and the devil to the equation only adds confusion. Rain is not cause by Zeus and our bad deeds are not caused by demons.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108125 Jul 6, 2013
care8741 wrote:
Evolutionism is a religion/theory whose followers believe with all their heart, mind, and soul that there is no God. Atheism is a religion whose followers believe with all their heart, mind, and soul there is no God. See the resemblance? Recently, a high school grad's college future was threatend because he mentioned God in his graduation speech. The public school has strict guidelines that say what a kid can and cannot say in front of people. God, and the Christian Faith, is on the CANNOT list. Like I have previosly posted; if you are going to talk seperation of religion and school, then tell muslims they can't wear head coverings and bow down at their certian times each day, tell atheists they can't wear t-shirts that say there's no God, tell Jews they can't wear Jewish Star necklaces, tell launguge arts teachers not to read/have read ANY literature having to do with ANY religion. And for Heavens Sake, tell science teachers not to teach the religon/theory of evolution!
Many believers of god also believe in evolution, so your whole hypothesis is shattered by this evidenced fact.

So you base your idea upon what one student MIGHT have been? That is pretty darned weak evidence.

What an individual wears due to religious doctrine should not be impeded by government. Note the constitution.
Atheists have no doctrine, so banning the t shirt you speak of is justifiable as it is likely disruptive.

You can wear a cross and Jews can wear the star. Do you really wish to ban them? I don't.

Evolution does not fit the definition of religion. If you wish to show it does, go for it. You must make your case, as no one is going to follow your demands based upon zero evidence.

religion
&#8194; Use Religion in a sentence
Ads
Religion www.dailybibleguide.com/ Passages, Daily Quotes, Verses & More with the Free Bible Toolbar
Religion www.bibletriviatime.com/ See How Much You Know The Bible Plus Free Access To Verses w/ App!
re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Now evolution has no say on the cause of the universe or superhuman agencies. It has no ritual observances. It has no moral codes.
Evolution might allow you to understand morality,but codes are not how it operates. Codes are use by religion, religiously.

2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Evolution has no practices agreed upon by anyone.

3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Again, no practices.

4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

Evolution has no monks, nuns, etc.

5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.\

Evolution has no rituals, observances or faiths.

Why is it that the religious are ignorant of the English language and as evidenced here, cannot even spell the word?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108126 Jul 6, 2013
care8741 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohh, I see now. If a 2 yr. old looks at candy in a store aisle, thinks it's pretty, and puts it in his/her pocket, his/her conscience automaticly knows that what he/she has done is wrong, without any previos teaching, and causes the toddler to have regret. LOL;) Your funny...
That, my friend, WOULD be a perfect teaching opportunity for the child, and no, punishment SHOULD NOT be a factor. It is the same with new Christians. God gives us plenty of learning opportunities, with pop quizes and tests all along the way. Plus, we have to best study guide on the market, the Bible!
Now, picture the same 2 yr. old, 14 yr.s later. After being taught and guided by his/her parents all his/her young life, he/she still doesn't get that stealing is wrong. He/she sees a pair of shiny new Reboks on the shoe store shelf, kicks of his/her old sneakers, slips on those, and walks out the door. The teen doesn't get very far, though, because the store security gaurd caught the whole action on tape. The police are notified. Should this 16 yr. old be punished? Of course. He knows not to steel and he did it anyway. This is also the same way with us and God. God teaches us, and teaches us, and teaches us, until finally we get it. However, even though get it, does that mean we won't try to get away with it? No. God is like the security gaurd, catching it all on tape. Just like the kid in the example, we to need to be punished. I'm not talking about go strait to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. God punishes us down here on earth. I am not going to explain THAT ONE to you; although I will say recently I Injured my miniscus, and I can probably link that to the way I was treating my Mother.
I would also say that it is scary having someone running around who thinks that what is right for one person is wrong for another. I wonder if that is the mind set of adulterers, bank robbers, and child molesters???(After all, in some countries they think it's 'right' to eldery men to marry 9 yr. old girls. Is that what you were talking about?)
The child molesters are judged by society. They are punished by society. Not some meniscus thrashing god. Wow, what a stretch to think your injury was gods work due to how crappy you treat your parents. If god was really the judge who enacted punishment on earth, he is a pretty poor parent, as any parent should know, swift punishment ensures the offender will know just what he did wrong, instead of guessing it was some distant crime like the one you speak of.
If god really was the judge, jury and executioner, no child molesters would live long enough to stand trial or repeat the crime multiple times.
If god really was the judge, we would need no prisons, we would need no police.

Your meniscus tore because our bodies are not built perfectly. You probably did not warm up well and exerted yourself to hard.
But I guess for someone who does not understand his conscience, keep on believing it was due to your poor treatment of others. Some might call that a conscience that is a bit confused.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108127 Jul 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm ok with teaching that evolution occurs, while providing examples that have been proven. But apes to humans have not been proven yet, so it should be taught as a theory. Just as whether you are born gay or not has not been proven yet, it should be taught that it is a theory, and then present the evidence that leads some to believe it.
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.

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
KY 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Nutz 153,157
KY Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 1 hr Go Blue Forever 26,266
Republicans have tunnel vision!! 4 hr God 74
KY What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... 5 hr yeah man 4,579
Barbourville high school salaries WOW 6 hr Well 9
Breeze Gregory 6 hr Holly blevins 3
Mike Smith, Warren and Baker 8 hr Tommy 2
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••