Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 171832 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.

Fgyuio

Chicago, IL

#109047 Jul 28, 2013
Gf

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109049 Jul 28, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm not waiting for anyone to fulfill those things because....I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MAGIC.
Also, how the hell is it compelling that a book written AFTER another book purports to fulfill things "foretold" in the previous book? Especially when the events being told about are not substantiated by evidence?
It's purely a matter of faith. And I have no use for faith unless it can wipe my butt.
Look at the lists you linked to. There is a term for what you're doing: cherry picking. You find one little verse or one little sentence that *kinda sounds like* something you see in the NT and BAM! You believe it is prophecy.
Damn. If its that easy to fool people I am going to start my own religion.
L. Ron Hubbard took your advice and started his own and it is one of the fastest growing religions in the world.
When Christians claim Jesus must have done the claimed acts due to people following the story with faith, I cite the history of Scientology.
It is human nature to wish for the Utopian ideals claimed. Some will cling to wild claims in order to keep the dream alive for this Utopia. Denial is needed in order to keep this faith.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109050 Jul 28, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>"Most of us"? Who the hell is "us", Christians? Many if not most historian scholars say George seems to have been deist.
What I think most about Washington and his religious beliefs is, he did not want religion dictating government. He wanted a separation of church and state.

Most people think the cherry tree cutting was a true story, does it make it true?
Either way, their are varying views of what Washington believed as far as religion. It is really hard to know what any one person really thinks on a subject unless he records his views in depth. Even then it often gets twisted in the interpretations.
Jesus recorded none of his views. All of his views were opined by third parties and more.
I didn't say "most of us". I said most.
It is very evident that he believed in God. He attributed the formation of America as God's will. He was seen several times reading the Bible and praying, and he was active in the leadership of a Christian church.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109051 Jul 28, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Providence can be of nature or of a god. Depends on that which you believe intervenes. Seems you assume Washington was speaking of a god. Others will think he was speaking of nature.
But again, I did not ask you what your opinion of his religion was. I only used Washington as an example of the differing opinions of his beliefs.
Now can you focus on the actual debate and stop diverting?
It is widely accepted that he was referring to God when saying Providence. As long as you can see that, sure, which debate do you want to resume?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109052 Jul 28, 2013
curious wrote:
A Disease Which Affects Only Atheists?
Posted on 16 August 2011 by Briggs
American Atheists have filed papers with an official government body claiming that they, American Atheists, suffer from a debilitating illness from which only the government has the power to cure. Strangely, this malady affects the central nervous system only of members of this group and not of ordinary citizens.
The group I mean are official “American Atheists” and not atheists who are Americans per se, though that organization claims to speak for non-affiliated atheists living in this country.
We learn from Jordan Sekulow at the Washington Post that the papers filed by the American Atheists is a lawsuit aimed at those in charge of rebuilding the World Trade Center site, destroyed on September 11, 2001.
The American Atheists claim that the cross builders would ensconce on the new building is harming them physically and emotionally.
In their suit, they charge that “Named plaintiffs have seen the cross, either in person or on television, and are being subjected to, and injured in consequence.” On television! As plaintiffs, they “pray and demand”(no irony intended) that they cross be removed.
Among those suing are
Plaintiffs Dennis Horvitz and Kenneth Bronstein [who] are members of American Atheists and are Atheists reared in the Jewish tradition. They find the cross, a symbol of Christianity, offensive and repugnant to their beliefs, culture, and traditions, and allege that the symbol marginalizes them as American citizens.
Plaintiff Jane Everhart says the cross would be an “insult” to non-Christian survivors of that attack. Plaintiff Mark Panzarino does not go as far and would be satisfied if they put up a “Lutheran cross” instead of the ostensibly non-Lutheran one.
Among the defendant’s named are Mike Bloomberg and that larger-than-life figure Chris Christie (why not?). Old Rudy G. is in there, as are a church (American Atheists are against them) and Silverstein Properties.
The American Atheists also single out my friend Brian Jordan, a Franciscan Friar who the American Atheists accuse of conducting “a religious ceremony directed at placing a symbol of Christianity on government-owned property.” They mean that Father Jordan blessed the serendipitous cross of steel found in the rubble of the trade towers “after construction workers at the site told him they saw the cross as ‘a sign that God never abandoned us at Ground Zero.’”
But what does all this legal rigmarole and matters tragic have to do with the cruel disease suffered by American Atheists?
So do you believe the author of this story in his claims about a disease?
It is clear by the charges cited here that no disease is being claimed by the atheists, yet the author is evidently lying to promote his agenda.
The issue is a debate of separation of church and state, not a single thing to do with any disease.
Why must Christians lie so often to promote their agenda? Is their some clause in the bible that says you can lie to promote Christianity? Reminds me of how Islam claims to be the religion of peace.
9/11 was the effect of religions blind faith and the disputes between religions. So erecting a symbol representing one side of this faith based dispute is extremely ironic and not conducive to building peaceful relations. Clearly the symbol is dividing people, and this is the reason for the law suit.
The trade towers had thousands of cross beams and one happened to survive the attack by religious fanatics. So now Christians are claiming the cross beam is some sort of sign from Jesus. Treat it as a religious symbol and it will be treated as a religious symbol by those who oppose religious symbols being erected by government.
Separation of church and state is a founding principle of America.The main reason for this principle is to lessen the religious disputes.
Now just why can you guys not comprehend this simple and clearly effective principle?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109054 Jul 28, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say "most of us". I said most.
It is very evident that he believed in God. He attributed the formation of America as God's will. He was seen several times reading the Bible and praying, and he was active in the leadership of a Christian church.
Did you read a poll that showed "most" people believe Washington was a Christian? Not that it matters the percentage of what side believes what. My claim and point stands, their is a large dispute of what Washington believed in a religious sense, even to the point of him being a Christian or not.
Their is a debate of whether Hitler was a Christian also. Again, no matter the percentage of believers, the dispute is still a dispute.

The evidence for Hitler being a Christian is about the same for Washington being a Christian.
Both said some pretty contradictory things that can lead one to think they were not true believers of the story. Maybe they believed parts of the story. Maybe they believed some of the passages just had some good messages. So citing the reading the bible is not really conclusive in my opinion. I have been known to read the bible, would you call me a Christian?
I hope you know Christians are not the only people who pray. So citing this seems really strange.
I hope you know citing god does not make one a Christian. Most religions have gods.
If this is what you call conclusive evidence, I can see why you are a believer.
Do you even know what a deist is?

Oh, and I hope you know politicians will say a lot of things that are on the side of team-majority to win votes. So when a politician says something placating the believers, I would not put full trust his words are really what they believe. Washington was a politician. Hitler was politician.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109056 Jul 28, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
It is widely accepted that he was referring to God when saying Providence. As long as you can see that, sure, which debate do you want to resume?
So "widely accepted" proves what? Islam is widely accepted, Hinduism is widely accepted. Need I continue?
Being widely accepted by people who are mostly ignorant of many of the things Washington said about religion certainly does not impress me.

Did you miss my post about Providence? Did you not comprehend my post about providence? I do not agree with you at all. If you think I agreed with you, go back and read my post again more carefully and thoughtfully.

Since: Jul 13

Amlaha, India

#109057 Jul 28, 2013
i went to school we had a lady come once a week, she didnt teach religion, she told bible stories,it was a good break,she told the stories with pictures, also the first thing in the morning, we sang songs said the pledge for about 15 minutes.it set the tone for the day,as a child grows into adult hood,they will adopt their own beliefs,this is a stepping stone. they will believe in something.

..........

[url=http://www.indianfood.tk] daal bati [/url]

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109059 Jul 28, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>It is incredible how understanding increases when someone is not blinded by faith.
I get you think you can magically understand hidden meanings in the bible. Do you think for a second I or any atheist thinks this is rational?

I know their are many devout believers who study the bible like it is their job, but yet they still have different beliefs of what it means. So I conclude this holy ghost concept is not reliable at all.
If this holy ghost concept was real, I could see no reason for the protestant and Catholic differences.
Now can you explain why they would differ?
I have, to you, more than once.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109060 Jul 28, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, but the contradictions of your statement is jarring me.
If the holy ghost is so important, then why are their so many interpretations of the same passages? Is the ghost not doing his job?
I thought you believed the holy ghost helped those who wrote the bible. If so, could the ghost not get the story correct?
You seem to want your cake and eat it also.
If the ghost could not make the story inerrant, then why would I think he could straighten out its meanings?
And really, do you expect us to believe in ghosts doing these magical things in our brains? Do you know how irrational that sounds?
It is difficult for many to throw their own will and opinion aside and accept whatever the Holy Ghost tells you. People normally just want confirmation of what they already think. He always does His job, but people don't always make the best receivers.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109061 Jul 28, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a book by Daniel Everett called "Don't Sleep. There Are Snakes."
He was a Christian missionary to an Amazonian tribe which he was supposed to convert.
Instead THEY converted HIM.
He is now an atheist.
Fascinating story.
That does sound awesome. I'll try to check it out!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109062 Jul 28, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Like? Or do you do like other religious folks and cherry pick your experts?....:)
Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy:
“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
George Kukla, climatologist, research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University:
"The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid."
I'm not an expert. All I now is that *most* scientists accept the theory as being pretty sound. And many former skeptics changed their minds as a result of evidence, including Michael Shermer. With that in mind, and having no particular expertise myself, I would be both foolish and arrogant to dismiss their opinion because I might not like Liberals.

And it seems to me that the primary reason for the Climate Change denial movement is because they don't like Liberals. It's a lot like the Red Scare. Recycling? Burn 'em at the stake! Treehugger!

No thanks.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109063 Jul 28, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
This was talking about resurrection, not zombies walking the earth.
What's the difference? A bunch of people coming back from the dead would be HUGE NEWS. It would have lasting repercussions in history. The absence of even the scantest evidence strongly suggests it is a fiction.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109064 Jul 28, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
It is difficult for many to throw their own will and opinion aside and accept whatever the Holy Ghost tells you. People normally just want confirmation of what they already think. He always does His job, but people don't always make the best receivers.
That's called being credulous. Hear a voice in your head, do what it tells you...check into the insane asylum.

Can you offer some demonstration of evidence to support the idea that such a thing as a "holy ghost" exists? By what means would you prove such a thing without throwing intellectual honesty out the window and relying on blind faith?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109065 Jul 28, 2013
roytallor wrote:
i went to school we had a lady come once a week, she didnt teach religion, she told bible stories,it was a good break,she told the stories with pictures, also the first thing in the morning, we sang songs said the pledge for about 15 minutes.it set the tone for the day,as a child grows into adult hood,they will adopt their own beliefs,this is a stepping stone. they will believe in something.
..........
[url=http://www.indianfood.tk] daal bati [/url]
"They will believe in something"? Well I suppose if your government(public school)read from the Koran everyday to an impressionable child for years on end, chances are the child would someday believe the Koran was true. Statistics show this is the case.
Why do you believe government should be in charge of teaching your child religion? Why do you disagree with a founding principle of America, separation of church and state?

Setting a religious based tone is not the job of public schools(government).

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109066 Jul 28, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I have, to you, more than once.
I know you "feel" you explain yourself clearly about things, but if you note from me and several posters here, you do not. You bait and switch. You avoid direct questions like the plague, just as you did here.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109067 Jul 28, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
It is difficult for many to throw their own will and opinion aside and accept whatever the Holy Ghost tells you. People normally just want confirmation of what they already think. He always does His job, but people don't always make the best receivers.
By this line of reasoning, all Catholics refuse to "to throw their own will and opinion aside and accept whatever the Holy Ghost tells you."
By this line of reasoning, you claim to be one of the few persons who do not "to throw their own will and opinion aside and accept whatever the Holy Ghost tells you."

Mr. Do Whut is the perfect listener and the Pope refuses to listen to the holy ghost. And you don't consider yourself arrogant?

I do agree that many people use their own will and opinion to deduce what the words they read mean. You know like when a Christian reads the old testament, he sees things that leads him to believe it was speaking of Jesus and when Jews read it, the Jesus is not what it was speaking about. Most Christians were raised to be Christian and most Jews were raised to believe in Judaism.

So it looks as if no one is listening to any ghosts, or no ghost exists. It looks as if people are just believing what they have been taught to interpret the bible.

Now if you could only prove you are someone that is being lead by a ghost instead of just following the protestant line of faith instead of just being raised a protestant.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#109069 Jul 28, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not an expert. All I now is that *most* scientists accept the theory as being pretty sound. And many former skeptics changed their minds as a result of evidence, including Michael Shermer. With that in mind, and having no particular expertise myself, I would be both foolish and arrogant to dismiss their opinion because I might not like Liberals.
And it seems to me that the primary reason for the Climate Change denial movement is because they don't like Liberals. It's a lot like the Red Scare. Recycling? Burn 'em at the stake! Treehugger!
No thanks.
You do realize that 97% claim and the claim the the vast majority agree that man has anything to do with global warming or climate changing is Bullocks right?......

The Number comes from a survey sent out with Only 2 Questions on it...

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Here's the Break Down of the responses in graph form....

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...

The one thing not noted in that Graph is that the Author of the Survey picked which respondents were considered "Climate Scientists" based on IPCC denotations of selected individuals that are actually in various fields... So a Geologist that does not support IPCC's positions is not given status as a Climate Scientist even if his research has been strictly climate in the geological record for a decade while another Geologist is given status as a Climate Scientist by the IPCC even if he has studied geological impact on the climate for a week...

The Actual Number of Scientist that Disagree with AGW far exceeds the scientists that Agree with it...

Let me repeat that....

The Actual Number of Scientist that Disagree with AGW far exceeds the scientists that Agree with it...

It's the Notation of Who is and is not considered a Climate Scientist that is at the heart of the issue.... There is no such thing as a Climate Scientist in reality.. There are those that do scientific research in many fields of study that then focus on their fields impact on local and global climate... But a scientist that spends decades studying their fields climate impact can be ignored and not given the title of "Climate Scientist" if they are not part of a Small contingent that back the IPCC AGW world views....

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109071 Jul 28, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that 97% claim and the claim the the vast majority agree that man has anything to do with global warming or climate changing is Bullocks right?......
The Number comes from a survey sent out with Only 2 Questions on it...
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Here's the Break Down of the responses in graph form....
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...
The one thing not noted in that Graph is that the Author of the Survey picked which respondents were considered "Climate Scientists" based on IPCC denotations of selected individuals that are actually in various fields... So a Geologist that does not support IPCC's positions is not given status as a Climate Scientist even if his research has been strictly climate in the geological record for a decade while another Geologist is given status as a Climate Scientist by the IPCC even if he has studied geological impact on the climate for a week...
The Actual Number of Scientist that Disagree with AGW far exceeds the scientists that Agree with it...
Let me repeat that....
The Actual Number of Scientist that Disagree with AGW far exceeds the scientists that Agree with it...
It's the Notation of Who is and is not considered a Climate Scientist that is at the heart of the issue.... There is no such thing as a Climate Scientist in reality.. There are those that do scientific research in many fields of study that then focus on their fields impact on local and global climate... But a scientist that spends decades studying their fields climate impact can be ignored and not given the title of "Climate Scientist" if they are not part of a Small contingent that back the IPCC AGW world views....
So public opinion should override scientific consensus?
Well then you had better scurry down to church and start praying.

I noticed you avoided the points made by the person you responded to. Denial is how one keeps faith.

Not sure what the majority of scientists agreeing with the IPCC has to do with the fact most scientists who study the subject believe in climate change and it being at least partly or mostly due to man.
But I am used to bait and switch tactics by right wingers. I know their is a tiny list of things in which you disagree with republicans on, and at least religion is one of them.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109072 Jul 28, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
It is difficult for many to throw their own will and opinion aside and accept whatever the Holy Ghost tells you. People normally just want confirmation of what they already think. He always does His job, but people don't always make the best receivers.
So in effect, you are claiming to know the ghost is telling people stuff and you can know they are willfully ignoring that ghost? Did the ghost tell you this?
Seems to me if they believe in the ghost story, they would would listen to the ghost.

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
FlatliCk auction 26 min Dealer 3
Dairy Queen in Barbourville 1 hr Amazing 10
Medicaid work provisions 1 hr TOASTup 38
She Got Fired...AGAIN!!! 2 hr Knox county 31
Do you Support or Oppose Union's? 3 hr Quantummist 18
Disgraced City School Board Member Resign ? 5 hr lol 4
The Specialist would appreciate your Assessment. 5 hr Tastetherainbow 2

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages