Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 143194 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.

Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#108777 Jul 25, 2013
In case you missed this...

You won't recognize me. My name was Antonio West and I was the 13-month old child who was shot at point blank range by two teens who were attempting to rob my mother, who was also shot. A Grand Jury of my mommy's peers from Brunswick GA determined the teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty...too bad I was given a death sentence for being innocent and defenseless.

My family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder was not ruled a Hate Crime. Nor did President Obama take so much as a single moment to acknowledge my murder.

I am one of the youngest murder victims in our Nation's history, but the media doesn't care to cover the story of my tragic demise, President Obama has no children who could possibly look like me - so he doesn't care and the media doesn't care because my story is not interesting enough to bring them ratings so they can sell commercial time slots.

There is not a white equivalent of Al Sharpton because if there was he would be declared racist, so there is no one rushing to Brunswick GA to demand justice for me. There is no White Panther party to put a bounty on the lives of those who murdered me. I have no voice, I have no representation and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller - I no longer have my life.

So while you are seeking justice for Trayvon, please remember to seek justice for me too. Tell your friends about me, tell you families, get tee shirts with my face on them and make the world pay attention, just like you did for Trayvon.

Thank you.
.
You see....
This Trayvon this was like the anti-muslim video...
A Cover up for a Failed Evil POTUS!
We'll never forget
Benghazi,
IRS,
NSA (although... If it saves lives, I have nothing to hide)
Fast n furious,
....
List goes on, n on!
Obama is the divider n chief, AND
everyone that still thinks he's swell...
Buy a Clue!
YoucancallmePepp er

London, KY

#108778 Jul 25, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, its your right to protect yourself. No doubt. But I would argue that using a gun to do it is not a good idea because bullets tend to kill people. You can't come back from killing a person or getting killed.
You can come back from pepper spray or tazing.
Yup.

Violence is for dark age thugs.

However, if thugs insist on acting like thugs, people have a right to protect/defend themselves.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#108779 Jul 25, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I was wrong about Mark. It does contain miracles and Jesus is said to have risen near the end. I was remembering it wrong.
But no, that is not why I dismiss Jesus as a divine figure. There are lots of other reasons such as the fact that divine figures don't exist.
All that tangible "figurehead" stuff is almost irrelevent in the whole big picture of life on earth as we know per say anyway.

Due to the FACT, that Words of divine WISDOM exist (in many other books as well) for those who chose to be open minded, enlightened enough, and possess intelligence enough to LEARN from them anyway.

Who would want to "worship" anything that encompassed the MENTALity level of mindlessly bleeting on about and slobbering over anything at a velveteenage posterlicker level, when they can read, think, AND form their OWN opinions for themselves!!!!!!!!!!

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108780 Jul 25, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you just missed the point completely.
It does not matter to me that Jesus Himself did not write a book that we have today. I believe the scriptures are true, though not inerrant. I believe in prophets and apostles that are appointed by God to communicate His messages to us. I believe in the Holy Ghost and have learned to identify His guidance.
You struggle to believe Jesus even existed, so when I say "Jesus said", you automatically place doubt in the remainder of the sentence. I do not think this way because I have received an undeniable personal witness that Jesus not only existed, but is the most important figure in all of human history, as well as human future.
You would like to present the words of the NT as verbatim, yet what are the chances that an attendee of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech on August 28, 1963 would be able to recite it from memory?
Can you recite from memory a spiritually inspired sermon you might have preached or heard just 2 years ago?

I have no issue with the notion that Jesus is an important figure in history, that he existed or that he said things that perturbed the temple apple carts.
I have an issue with the notion that the Bible is divinely accurate and I have an issue with those who make erroneous statements to support that claim. That is NOT a point I missed. When you say things like George Washington didn't write anything I automatically place doubt on the veracity of your "undeniable personal witness."
GWB

Roseville, CA

#108781 Jul 25, 2013
Do you believe religion is a pyramid scheme?

According to the Urban Dictionary

1. A bad idea.

2. An over simplification of a complicated idea to rationalize away the unknown so that the general public can sleep at night believing that by attending religious services they are on the way to salvation.

3. Subtle attempts at brainwashing for a.... "good" cause.
4. The lack of desiring real answers about life and thusly settling for what is popularly accepted.

1. Organized religion is about as smart as eating bleach.

2. Organized religion is like having "Advanced Calculus For Dummies."

3. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but any group trying to convince me to giving money to them along with believing crackers are God will get me into heaven, isn't all too far from brainwashing, regardless of motives.

4. I'm lazy so I am a fervent believer in organized religion.

I think this list could be longer.

http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-or-lack...

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108782 Jul 25, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>Do you really not see something wrong with this statement?

True = Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous.
Inerrent = Incapable of erring; infallible. Containing no errors.

So, you are saying that you believe scriptures are true...but they aren't.
You are some kind of weird.
I believe at one time they were completely accurate. I believe that through different people's interpretations and translations (along with Satan's influence) that scriptures have become less perfect. I do not think that the intention of the scriptures was to leave things so open to interpretation that there could be this many denominations coming from the same source.
Also, judging from the way Christ taught, we are supposed to rely on the Holy Ghost for our understanding. Those that wanted to learn more, and had full intentions to follow His teachings no matter what they were, are the ones that had "ears to hear".

“I'll think about it.”

Since: Nov 07

central Florida

#108783 Jul 25, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe at one time they were completely accurate. I believe that through different people's interpretations and translations (along with Satan's influence) that scriptures have become less perfect.
So Yahweh was sloppy when it came to translators for "his" book or just didn't see the mistakes coming?

What happened to "omniscient?" Oh wait, are you the one that doesn't believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipreset deity?

I get the impression that your "god" is like Superman... really powerful and all that but with the same flaws as humans.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#108785 Jul 25, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
At least I know how the differece between "whole" and "hole."
<quoted text>
Try not to appear any more foolish than you usually do.
I post only as aWitchintheWoods.
It bothers you to think there are so many educated, intelligent, well-spoken atheists. You would rather pretend we are all posting under multiple names. But you are wrong, as usual.
Anyone with half a brain would notice the distinct personalities represented.
Let me see if I got this whole business wright.
A hole lot of people believe atheists have a whole in their heads.
LOL..Before you point it out,,I spelled LOL backwards...LOL
These many educated,intelligent Atheists you allude to,Where can they be found?
Comments posted by Atheists on this website;
John the Baptist taught Jesus....Wrong
Mark makes no mention of Jesus being the son of God,his resurection or any miracles......Wrong,,he has now admitted to being wrong.
Atheist claims to have evidence that the Bible predicted the coming of Michael Jackson.
Atheist claims that swallowing water melon seeds will not cause vines to grow out of you butt"That is more than I needede to know about watermelons" LOL,,I spelled LOL backwards again LOL
Atheist believes one should always be armed due to muggers who may break into your home,take your goods and RAPE your cat.
Since that item was posted,KITTEN KODDER has not been heard from
I dunno.
i have seen a lot of ignorant opinions posted...
May be these opinions are originating from Atheist wannabes.
Could be we should disregard the hole thing or,possibly I just shot your argument full of wholes HEH,HEH HEH...
I know what you gonna say...I spelled HEH backwards LOL
Oh,those mental games....

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108786 Jul 25, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>To address Mark first, yes I am wrong. My comments about Mark were made with question marks or uncertainty because it had been a while since I read it. The main point I wanted to make was that the gospels seem to ratchet up the level of magic as you go along, regarding the divine nature of Jesus. Plus there's just a ton of interesting textual criticism of the synoptic gospels regarding the fact that they do not agree with each other on key points (particularly related to the events after the crucifixion).

There are LOTS of reasons to be skeptical of the Bible's claims. One of them is why on earth no documents outside the Bible mention all these crazy magic spells being cast left and right by this hippie? And the Romans, who according to Christians were extremely put out by Jesus, don't bother to mention him in their records.

Now, about the Hebrew Bible,*you* are quite wrong. And the onus is not on me, but on you. If you claim that the OT predicts Jesus you're going to have to supply a ton of evidence. First of all, predicting the future is not possible so you have to present some pretty god-damned compelling evidence. Second, the book never mentions Jesus. And yes, we're going to need a name. Earlier in this thread I showed how you could predict Michael Jackson from the Bible. It is not hard to predict Jesus.

You can get almost anything you want out of thousands of verses written in archaic languages. If you give me "And lo shall there be a lamb to the slaughter" it will still not prove your assertion. You see what you want to see, I see what the evidence shows me.
Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. Now if you go back and read the Bible you will see these references to Jesus all over.

One example: do you understand the significance of "I Am"?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108787 Jul 25, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
So Yahweh was sloppy when it came to translators for "his" book or just didn't see the mistakes coming?
What happened to "omniscient?" Oh wait, are you the one that doesn't believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipreset deity?
I get the impression that your "god" is like Superman... really powerful and all that but with the same flaws as humans.
Of course. He was created in our image, after all.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108788 Jul 25, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I was wrong about Mark. It does contain miracles and Jesus is said to have risen near the end. I was remembering it wrong.

But no, that is not why I dismiss Jesus as a divine figure. There are lots of other reasons such as the fact that divine figures don't exist.
So we are right back to what started your lame defense. You are calling Jesus a fraud, but for some reason don't like us to point it out that you are saying this. I really don't care if you think this or not, but man up to it.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108789 Jul 25, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, if packing heat makes you feel better then that's up to you and your local laws. I don't really care. I just tend to be suspicious of people who I know are carrying a loaded gun in the grocery store, that's all.

I keep away from them.
I just remain nice to them. They may save my life.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108790 Jul 25, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>You would like to present the words of the NT as verbatim, yet what are the chances that an attendee of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech on August 28, 1963 would be able to recite it from memory?
Can you recite from memory a spiritually inspired sermon you might have preached or heard just 2 years ago?

I have no issue with the notion that Jesus is an important figure in history, that he existed or that he said things that perturbed the temple apple carts.
I have an issue with the notion that the Bible is divinely accurate and I have an issue with those who make erroneous statements to support that claim. That is NOT a point I missed. When you say things like George Washington didn't write anything I automatically place doubt on the veracity of your "undeniable personal witness."
I didn't say GW didn't write ANYTHING. Go back and read please. My point was that we have his words that he did not write at the time they happened because others wrote it down.

And as I said, I believe in the Holy Ghost. I believe that those that wrote the books of the Bible were inspired by Him and therefore wrote accurately about doctrinally important events and teachings.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108791 Jul 25, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>So Yahweh was sloppy when it came to translators for "his" book or just didn't see the mistakes coming?

What happened to "omniscient?" Oh wait, are you the one that doesn't believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipreset deity?

I get the impression that your "god" is like Superman... really powerful and all that but with the same flaws as humans.
Man this quote really describes you:

Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.
- Metallica

It is foretold in the scriptures that these things will happen. If you really took half the time that you spend degrading believers, and used it to study the scriptures, you could learn quite a bit on your own.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108792 Jul 25, 2013
SistaNoneyabiz wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, because this is just aNother duhm top-icks thread, irrelevent to anything except for it's pathetic existence on the gutter dump end of the internets sewage system. Not much right about any of it actually, so that isn't really any sort of realistic accusation there either, unless you're a blinkered type of bloke....mired in ignorance of a viewing the world as a simplisTIC one of mere black/white, right/left, stop/go...you know, clueless as to the REST of the realms of reality.
So, keeping it simple for the simple minded then--How about trying to figure out what the newest member of the Church of England's name will be?!
(Something that is actually refreshing to hear of!)
Guiness? Try not to throw your elbow out raising the cheers!
Oh, so now your excuse for not using the rules of society is because we are all stupid? I really do not think using different names is keeping anything simple.
What I see is here is you making excuses because you cannot admit to being wrong.
Man up and use a consistent name or we will just continue to not take you seriously. According to your excuse, you do not care to be taken seriously, so we are on the same page.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108793 Jul 25, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say GW didn't write ANYTHING. Go back and read please. My point was that we have his words that he did not write at the time they happened because others wrote it down.
And as I said, I believe in the Holy Ghost. I believe that those that wrote the books of the Bible were inspired by Him and therefore wrote accurately about doctrinally important events and teachings.
"I believe" ain't what you crack it up to be.
I read fine, and your comparison doesn't hold any water. GW obviously wrote, but there is no evidence that JC wrote or that what was written about him was accurate through divine inspiration, fastidious record keeping by scribes/disciples or incredible memories. For all you >know< the teachings and lessons of Jesus could an amalgam of a dozen social malcontents from his day. All you have is belief in doctrine as concocted and inflicted by the accumulated musings of clergy. It's nice that it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, but that just about sums it up. Nice.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108794 Jul 25, 2013
SistaNoneyabiz wrote:
<quoted text>
"Yup".
(doesn't get much simpler than that huh?)
Well the word "yes" would have been simpler, but at least you answered clearly for a change.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108795 Jul 25, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm otay ...this is one of those see the twisted distortion for duhmmies practice paragraphs right?
Just leave the Science books alone--there's NOT enough of them!!
Are you telling me to leave the science books alone or are you telling the creationists? You are just running from the question again. You agree messing with the science books is bad, so why not answer the actual question, which is, is this agenda by religion doing harm in our society? I see it as bad, thus I condemn the ideas that lead to the actions. You continue to run from this debate and dance around.
Note the actual question on my post.

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So is pushing for an agenda of less science books in the science classroom harmless in your opinion? I do not see it as harmless.
Now are you going to address this point or are you going to keep diverting to only addressing the extremes? The extremes I pointed out were only given to show definitively how religion can lead to bad.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108796 Jul 25, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you've crossed the line and confused yourself.
Keep it simple, you think ad speak for YOURSELF and I can and will do the same.
Just because some atheists are haters, doesn't mean all of them are, and just because some believers debate atheists doesn't mean all believers believe in it.
And just because something might seem a double standard to You personally, does not mean it is to others, and actually I would think that anyone else's faith would have nothing to do with your, or my (for that matter) perspective of standards, or double standards, at all.
Unless...are you some sort of roboTic pwetend-to-be-a-clone, or something freaky like that?
(pshew...ewe...)
I note you again fail to include some Christians as haters. Again you skirt the entire issue I am addressing and divert. The continued diversion is clear evidence of a denial and double standard. If you think you have consistent standards, please explain why you run from the main point of my debate?
Just claiming to not have double standards is not showing anything other than a lack of understanding of how to show evidence of something.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108797 Jul 25, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you've crossed the line and confused yourself.
Keep it simple, you think ad speak for YOURSELF and I can and will do the same.
Just because some atheists are haters, doesn't mean all of them are, and just because some believers debate atheists doesn't mean all believers believe in it.
And just because something might seem a double standard to You personally, does not mean it is to others, and actually I would think that anyone else's faith would have nothing to do with your, or my (for that matter) perspective of standards, or double standards, at all.
Unless...are you some sort of roboTic pwetend-to-be-a-clone, or something freaky like that?
(pshew...ewe...)
I think ones standards has a lot to do with ones faith. This is a theme I have been addressing for some time now.
If a person refuses to have the same standards for his beliefs as the ones he rejects, it shows he is not using logic and reason for his choice of beliefs.
One should take the outsiders test for his own beliefs with consistent standards.

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
Indictments 15 min Sam 2
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Kentucky (... (Oct '10) 47 min No Repub 727
Home wreckers 1 hr Kaye 5
Sixty minutes asking questions about Knox court... 1 hr lost my faith 20
Knox county hospital 1 hr violetrose1 2
Qualfications of a Pastor? 2 hr Nosey rosey 14
Prayers for Jm hall he's gonna need a lot !!!!!! 2 hr Redbird 2
Is judge ex Jm hall going to prison ? 6 hr Daniel 22
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages