Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 138064 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.

stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#109824 Aug 6, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
In reading some of your postings,what with all the anger and swearing,I fear you may be losing it.
Let us not forget what happened to Nietzsche ,Freud,Darwin and some of the other crackpot atheist who ended up in mental wards.
Let us hope you don't reach the anger level of those Atheist mentors ,Stalin,ZeDong and Pol Pot.
And certainly,do not emulate Madilyn O'Hair..
I found it distressing that Carl sagan brought you to tears...
You can get the same effect by peeling onions or stubbing your little toe on the dresser when you get up at midnight to go to the bathroom....To each his own.....
Now,get back to your foggy crystal ball and tell us about these mythological made up scientofic Stories rtegarding events that no one witnessed,how they happened ,where and why....
let's see,; Nothing created something from nothing,it went BOOOM and here we all are....
Honestly, Can't you pull out some new material from your little black magic bag? This same ole' same ole' is getting boring.(yawns)

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109825 Aug 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
1. What if the creator, created the laws of science? And since He does not want to be "proven" because it disposes of the need for faith because it is contrary to His plan, couldn't He avoid being proven to ensure His plans are not foiled?
And I can't really compare God to a scientist. Unless you know some that are claiming to BE God, I don't think it is a relevant comparison.
2. Why would God not be perfect if He had a Father? Jesus was perfect and He had a Father.
OK, since you felt I didn't answer you the last time here's a more direct answer.

1. "What if the creator, created the laws of science? And since He does not want to be "proven" because it disposes of the need for faith because it is contrary to His plan, couldn't He avoid being proven to ensure His plans are not foiled?"

Sure. This is what would follow from that premise:

God would be a liar and a dickhead. He would fool us into thinking there is only nature, then, through vague and disupted old books, he would ask us to have faith in him. Those of us who value the sense of reason he obviously gave us would reject that idea. And, as the overwhelming consensus of Christian doctrine would have it, we would deep fry in a vat of hellfire.

Hilarious! Good one, god. You devil.

But seriously, it's a fallacious argument. It sets itself up as not falsifiable. It cannot be refuted, it cannot be demonstrated. It is not scientific or rational. There isn't even a good reason to reply to it, honestly. I could make a similar argument that fairies did the same thing and you couldn't possibly refute me.

It reminds me of the rarely used Creationist argument that the reason we find dinosaur bones is because god is testing our faith. It's not a very clever argument and it lacks even the most fundamental degree of evidence.

2. "Why would God not be perfect if He had a Father? Jesus was perfect and He had a Father."

Jesus got killed on a cross. That's imperfection right there.

You need to clarify what you mean by "perfection". What I mean is that if god had a father then god is not all powerful, as virtually ALL Christian doctrine says he is. There is no Christian doctrine that I am aware of that postulates a beginning for god. To do so necessarily means god is not perfect. A perfect being would not require an act of creation in order to exist.

If you think otherwise then you are very much in a tiny, tiny minority of Christian thinkers and you lose all possible claim to any "first cause" or "prime mover" arguments that most apologists latch onto as a fundamental tool for proving the existence of god.

“Topix Idiotae plena estut tibi”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#109826 Aug 6, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
For one who does not believe in God,you,like the other atheists,devote a lot of yuour Attention to something you do not believe in.
They say that the Atheists Nietzsche ,Freud and Darwin ended up with mental problems due to their concern about something "GOD"they claimed did not exist.
Studies show that those who do not believe in God are more likely to develop mental issues...
I'm just saying....Be Careful and take care
Who is "they"? I've never heard or read anything like that.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#109827 Aug 6, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
How about YOU get a even a shred of a BRAINcell.
I PERSONALLY, NEVER witnessed ANYONE trying to force their beliefs on anyone else.
EVER. NOT in FIFTY years!!!!!!
So, what part of that simple statement derived of my Own PERSONAL EXPERIENCE did you NOT comprehend, trash mouth?
Well Let's see, From that statement, that you've posted 2 or 3 times now, you were in School 50 years, yet didn't learn a damn thing, how's that for comprehending.

laughing my A$$ Off, take a look @ your first sentence, and you think you have the right to tell someone else to ..... what exactly are you trying to say there LOL That's the result of 50 years in school folks!(irony) Perhaps it's time for 50 more.

My post was referencing students in a school/university, being subjected to their Teacher's or Instructor's religious views or opinions, and you jumped in with both feet saying in your 50 years you'd never witnessed it...... psssst..... Just because you've never witnessed it doesn't mean it doesn't happen . you lil twit, then you went on to say I needed to get a clue... I then showed proof of what I stated, and asked you why you said to me to get a clue.... You've never answered that , and I doubt you will!

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109830 Aug 6, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>First, are you assuming those who no longer believe are growing hate for you? If so, why?
And second, I thought your Jesus wanted you to promote his word to all, even those who oppose you?
But I understand it is easier to hook those who are already drinking the cool-aid to some degree.
The Jehovah Witnesses do the same thing. They give up on you if they see you are not buying the claims blindly.
I've seen it happen several times. Not always though.
Of course Jesus does. That's one reason I'm on here.

I'm only speaking of the people that have completely made up their minds that they never want to be a part of the church again and they want no further contact with anyone associated with the church. Understand?
If there is some chance that a person may want to come back, they have my full attention and effort with whatever they need. But if they would rather I never darken their doorway again, if rather know so we can help them remove their records and I won't waste their time anymore, nor vice versa.

I'm not sure why you see this as a bad thing and are trying to turn this into: I'm a bad person somehow.
Isn't this exactly what you asked for?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109831 Aug 6, 2013
Nox Aeterna wrote:
<quoted text>So, basically you're saying you condone the torture and murder of children if it's the "will of God" or to teach that child's parent a lesson due to their bad behavior?

I mean, you have to condone it, right? You'd never disagree with the Bible which is the "literal word of God". But, if you say you do condone it then it makes you a huge asshole because you think there are times it's ok for children to be tortured and murdered.

Who knew such complex moral dilemmas existed just by believing that an ancient book of fairy tales was real?
Did I say that? On the contrary, I am one of the very few on here that has said the Bible is not without error.
Read more closely please. You are way off here.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109832 Aug 6, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So does the bible claim god had anything to do with the child's death? If so, then are you telling me the holy ghost could not inspire the writers of the bible to tell the story correctly?

I see you avoided the mass murder question. Why can none of you guys defend the morality of your god? If the bible is a lesson of morality, why do you not include your god in this standard?
The bible is a book of moral lessons with a variety of standards. In other words, just as with man morality, it is all subjective. It is as if man made up the whole darned thing.
It says that Nathan told David that God will take the child. It doesn't say anything about the child being tortured. This innocent child would have left the earth and gone straight to the presence of God with no need of a judgment. So in God's eyes, this is not a punishment for the child. It actually means that the child gained his body and did not need his faith to be tested.

What mass murder question? Was it posed to me? I missed it if it was and have no idea what you are talking about.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109834 Aug 6, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>"Under the higher law,", otherwise known as another standard of law. In other words, a double standard.
No, please remember our previous conversations. The higher law, or priesthood, existed on earth for quite some time. Then the people that Moses freed from slavery proved themselves so wicked that God gave to them the lesser law, the Mosaic law, which was under the Levitical, or Aaronic priesthood (named after Moses' brother). This law was more carnal and basic and required more physical demands than spiritual. It pertains to the temporal ordinances. When Jesus came to earth, He brought the higher priesthood, called the Holy Priesthood, or the Priesthood in the order of Melchisidec. This was the more spiritual set of laws that have to do with eternity, saving ordinances, and sealing and healing powers.
It isn't a double standard. It is all about preparation and milk before meat. If you seek to gain knowledge of God and His kingdom, you will find knowledge and understanding. If you seek to mock Him, you will lose the knowledge and blessings that you once had, and all will be more confusing to you than before. And usually this turns to displeasure and even hate towards God as you continue to distance yourself from His light and knowledge. And if you choose to remove Him from your life so you are not in His presence, then you should expect to not be in His presence after this life.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109835 Aug 6, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So until David was forgiven, the blood of the child was tainted in some way?
First, to say the Messiah must be related to the royal family is so ancient minded, it proves to me this is just a man made tale. It is a monarchy concept.
America does not use such a system in its hierarchy for government, and this is due to it being absolutely stupid. It is the ways of tyrants and dictators. Man made systems that are not good. We have learned better ways. But your bible insists this is the way of perfection?

Of course David thought it was god punishing him, because he was taught god punished people in such barbaric ways. He had no line to god, he was just an ignorant, superstitious dictator.
That is what someone told me a long time ago. I guess maybe they meant he was an illegitimate child. Not sure.

As far as bloodline goes, it was a paternal priesthood lineage. Nothing to do with David being royalty. It has to do with priesthood lineage from prophets. From Adam to Abraham to David to Solomon to etc etc, the priesthood was passed from father to sons. This priesthood had to be present with John the Baptist as well as Mary and Joseph.
From the stories we have, David and Solomon were very good rulers and favored in God's blessings. Both screwed up in different ways and had to suffer consequences for their sins.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109836 Aug 6, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I compare Mormons to Islamic terrorists because the same theme of using blind faith for the actions you take that are detrimental to society. Case in point, the Mormon actions to keep homosexuals from having equality. Case in point, the actions Mormons have taken to keep black persons from having equality.
All this is due to faith, nothing more. The question is about faith, so the comparison shows, albeit in an extreme fashion, how faith can be harmful to society. It often takes an extreme example to show the effect. If I gave an exact equivalent comparison, I doubt you would think faith is harmful at all.

Yes, faith is a hope of the things unseen. In other words, things that cannot be known. The Islamic terrorists had faith their god would put treat them as kings for killing the infidels. It was an unseen hope. It was a hope they actually believed would enrich the lives of others. Clearly not of the lives of those taken, but of others lives.

I see you give the same personal claims as YAA. I get it, you have the belief a god had something to do with saving your life. And Kind David thought a god had something to do with his child's life(or death). Does it mean the god had anything to do with it, or was it just the hope?
If you did not have the hope of god, you might realize their are many things that can replace those sorts of hopes that can have the same sort of effects.
I can't agree that comparing what you consider equality in this continually degrading society with mass suicide-murder is a good comparison. Sorry. I'll never agree that just because it's becoming acceptable in our society, that it should become the norm. If that were the case, our specie would cease to exist due to lack of reproduction. But that horse is long dead between me and you.
Sure faith in the wrong thing can be harmful. Anyone can see that. And if you ever start seeing Mormon terrorists, we will revisit this conversation. Until then, it is irrelevant and a waste of our time.
As far as YAA, I don't know his story. But I am sure of mine, and I know I would be dead had I not listened to the Holy Ghost. It is fact to me.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Somerset, KY

#109837 Aug 6, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. I'm not familiar with crustal shifts or megalithic alignments. Sounds cool though. I might Google that later.
All I know is Noah's Ark is a dumb...dumb...dumb story for a grown person to believe is real. Taking it as mythology, yes. That's what it is. But taking it as a literally true story is a hallmark of total bumf*cked ignorance. And it does a huge dis-service to the study of ancient literature. That's one of the reasons I get so pissed over the topic. These idiots want to inject their silly little god dreams into this literature, making it impossible for them to understand it for what it really is.
It poisons the topic. And how many millions of little kids learned the story in its most neutered and juvenile form?
I mean come on...what about the floating corpses of all the babies god murdered over the course of those 40 days? Where's the coloring books with that? Hah.
Well the Crustal Shift theory has been around a long time and was supported by Albert Einstein. It was first published by Charles Hapgood ... And today we see the magnetic pole moving faster and faster which may be the first indicator that the next shift is underway.. The basic idea is that the light crust of the planet floats on a liquid magma with a fast spining iron core... at some point the natural precession wobble of the planet and the density of the ice build up at the poles cause the whole crust of the earth to shift in one piece like the peel of an orange if the inside of the orange was liquid.. And it happens very quickly geologically speaking... the Magnetic field is a product of not only the Iron Cores rotation but of the magmas directional flow also.. so just before a crustal shift the magnetic poles would start to wander and eddy currents would form causing the earths magnetic field to distort... then Whack!.. the crust shifts in a matter of weeks to months with slits in the tectonic plates and massive earthquakes that would continue for decades if not centuries until the planet stabilized at it's new crustal position... In the last 100 years the Magnetic poles have sped up over a 10 fold and are now moving at over 40 miles a year.... a 100 years ago they were drifting at about 4 miles a year... Today our magnetic north pole is in the Arctic Ocean headed for Russia...

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109838 Aug 6, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, most people are very ignorant of dinosaurs, the science of the past eras, and the life forms that existed in the past. And if you have an honest question, I welcome them. But in case you are not aware, their is a large dispute going on here about the past between your team(creationists) and the science of the day. Thing is, you guys do not seem to understand much about the science, yet keep insisting it is not correct.
Now I see you are not as insistent as most others on your team here, but either way, you are promoting the faith based (cannot be known/zero evidence) view of creation.

In the times of the Jurassic extinction, vegetation was reduced greatly. So it stands to reason the large creatures would not easily flourish. It took millions of years before vegetation grew back to normal levels. By this time the smaller animals gained such a great advantage, large animals never had a good chance competitively. There is always a race for resources.
I see this as harmful to our society. It retards some from advancing in knowledge.
Just wanted to explain why my panties are in a wad.
Dinosaurs intrigue me. I studied them from youth through high school. I almost became an archaeologist out of sheer infatuation.
My questions are sincere. I have learned quite a bit more lately that a lot of what I learned as a youth has been found untrue and scientific opinions have changed on several topics. So I'm interested again.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109839 Aug 6, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, but the double standards of laws only shows me this is not a law of a perfect god, but of men who learn what is a better law due to the lessons of history.
Not that turning the cheek is the best way, but it might have deterred a few from killing someones baby for the crimes of the father.
Obviously our society does not turn the other cheek. And it does sometimes take an eye for an eye. So ironic it is typically Christians who are for the death penalty, often quoting an eye for an eye. How insanely ignorant of them.

Humans judge, and we must judge, in my opinion. If we did not judge, the criminals would run free and likely harm us. This is why America has laws, judges and punishments. Society cannot settle for the hope a god will do the judging.

People like King David should have been judged by man and punished by man. He should have been kept from power so as to help prevent future crimes of the nature he committed.

This does not mean I do not forgive people, but I do not do it automatically. I do not forgive someone just because they asked for forgiveness. Depending upon the transgression, I may see they need to be punished and or give some reparations. So some transgressions need earned forgiveness. One must build and earn the trust, not be handed trust no matter the past transgressions.
I answered about the higher and lesser laws a minute ago, so I'll skip that here for sake of unnecessary duplication. Please don't say I avoided it.

For judgment, I pointed out that Jesus said when we must judge, we are to do so in righteousness. I judge all the time, like who my kids should be allowed to be near, etc. I am fine with people being judged and sentenced according to the laws of our state or country. They are aware of the laws and should they choose to break them, they should realize there is a good chance they will have to deal with the consequence.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109840 Aug 6, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, you did not say faith was virtue, but you did say it was needed.

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
1. What if the creator, created the laws of science? And since He does not want to be "proven" because it disposes of the need for faith because it is contrary to His plan, couldn't He avoid being proven to ensure His plans are not foiled?

So please explain why the plans could be foiled if the god gave out a bit of evidence?
And if the stories of the bible are true, would they not be evidence giving of some sort? If so, did it spoil the plan?

Point is, I see no point in needing faith. It is not virtuous, nor needed in any way that I can see as good. You have not explained it as why it is good, or needed.
I see it as bad, and I explained extensively why. Now why cannot not explain as I do?
I have explained it to you.
There are two main reasons we are on this earth. We chose to follow God's plan before we came to continue our progression to become like Him someday in eternity. We had to:
1. Gain a physical body
2. Have our faith in Him tested while out of His presence.

Remember?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109841 Aug 6, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>OK, since you felt I didn't answer you the last time here's a more direct answer.

1. "What if the creator, created the laws of science? And since He does not want to be "proven" because it disposes of the need for faith because it is contrary to His plan, couldn't He avoid being proven to ensure His plans are not foiled?"

Sure. This is what would follow from that premise:

God would be a liar and a dickhead. He would fool us into thinking there is only nature, then, through vague and disupted old books, he would ask us to have faith in him. Those of us who value the sense of reason he obviously gave us would reject that idea. And, as the overwhelming consensus of Christian doctrine would have it, we would deep fry in a vat of hellfire.

Hilarious! Good one, god. You devil.

But seriously, it's a fallacious argument. It sets itself up as not falsifiable. It cannot be refuted, it cannot be demonstrated. It is not scientific or rational. There isn't even a good reason to reply to it, honestly. I could make a similar argument that fairies did the same thing and you couldn't possibly refute me.

It reminds me of the rarely used Creationist argument that the reason we find dinosaur bones is because god is testing our faith. It's not a very clever argument and it lacks even the most fundamental degree of evidence.

2. "Why would God not be perfect if He had a Father? Jesus was perfect and He had a Father."

Jesus got killed on a cross. That's imperfection right there.

You need to clarify what you mean by "perfection". What I mean is that if god had a father then god is not all powerful, as virtually ALL Christian doctrine says he is. There is no Christian doctrine that I am aware of that postulates a beginning for god. To do so necessarily means god is not perfect. A perfect being would not require an act of creation in order to exist.

If you think otherwise then you are very much in a tiny, tiny minority of Christian thinkers and you lose all possible claim to any "first cause" or "prime mover" arguments that most apologists latch onto as a fundamental tool for proving the existence of god.
1. I don't even know how to begin to get you out of that tar pit of thinking. Good luck with that.

2. I still don't see how God couldn't be perfect even if He had a Father. Jesus is perfect, though has a Father.

“I was born a poor, black child”

Since: Jan 07

that weren't no easy thing

#109842 Aug 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I will say one thing for you (okay, two). You are one dedicated and loyal individual. Those are wonderful qualities to have, I hope you learn to let go one day and see how many people out there you REALLY could help just by being yourself.
SistaNoneYaBiz

Somerset, KY

#109843 Aug 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>This might seem ironic unless you understood the name given by science is metaphoric and not literal. You see, the Adam and Eve science is referring to are just the earliest ancestors yet found fossilized.
I can't simplify the context that was being referenced much more than it already was.

Do we need to step you BACKWARDS to an Ele Intro to photsynthesis or something?
SistaNoneYaBiz

Somerset, KY

#109844 Aug 7, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL you were in school 50 years? My statement was addressing the Public School System, if you were in school for 50 years, I highly doubt if you EVER witnessed it, you'd have the ability to recognize it! you dumb phuck hehehe. Now admit your mistake and go on your merry way! You were trying to paint me foolish; Seems it backfired on you Proven Science, Sista or as I like to reference you (the shemale)
You do a fine job painting your own self foolish, and quite IGNORANT as well. I see no need to add to those FACTS.

Don't you have ANYHTING better to than to froth vomitous ignorance onto others, out of nothing but sick in the head green envy, like some rabid dog?

I made NO mistake, Science STILL is UNable to explain the UKnown origins of the "Y" strands, and you are still mired in the muck of a MENTALcase ten year old level "what do yo' peepee look like" IGNORANCE.

Take a hike--skank nasty idiot level LOSER. Your ignorance is boringly juvenile and imbecilic, and of the animalisTicm realms of the proverbial sodom and gomorrahly DEPRAVED.
SistaNoneYaBiz

Somerset, KY

#109845 Aug 7, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
Once Again, when you are faced with losing yet ANOTHER ARGUMENT, you fall back to your usual banter, that's typical of you, avoiding the direct questions, name calling, and looking more the fool with every post.
Toodles LOSER-I don't do idiotocracy loserTicness...and that's all you're spewing.
SistaNoneYaBiz

Somerset, KY

#109846 Aug 7, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps were talking past one another. Let me be very clear. If you read the story of Noah in its proper context, as a piece of ancient literature that may or may not be based on some nugget of reality (in other words: a myth), then we have no quarrel.
My quarrel is with people who read it as truth. And for them it does matter how many days it rained, how old Noah was, and how big the boat was. Because those things are clearly defined in the story. If we read it in that way, the literal way, it makes no sense and goes against all manner of reason, science, and history.
Clinging to such a reading is stupid, especially today when you can Google it and know more about the topic in 15 minutes than your grandparents would have learned in their entire lives (typically).
I'm not saying the story has absolutely no basis in reality. Flood happen ALL THE TIME. And we tell stories all the time. It would make sense that ancient floods would lead to ancient stories.
What I am saying, unequivocally and without stuttering, is that Noah's Ark is FICTION in every sense of the word. When I read a Spider-Man comic book it is set in a place called New York City. It has trains, cars, restaurants, and references to historical figures. It involves a vigilante. There have been vigilantes, and there is a New York City. Therefore Spider-Man has a grain of truth in it.
But if you think Spider-Man comics are real you are a nuthut. Just like people who think the Bible is based on reality.
"If you read the story of Noah in its proper context, as a piece of ancient literature..."

I have REPEATEDLY emphasized, that in my opinion, that is the ONLY way to read the book-most specifically and especially the dark age, barbaric sounding parts, "pre-Jesus" OT.

About on the level of as interesting in some parts as spiderman comics, excluding it's excellent applications in use when it comes to archeology and glimpses into world history, making it actually a little more real world worthy than make beleive Spider man comics...mostly because there's NO comparisons when it comes to make believe Spidey slinging spidey webs up a building, and oh say...The Temple Mount for example. NO comparison what-so-ever then..whole DIFFERENT category!!:-)

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
Who is your man Boo ? 13 min Well 2
Scotty Powell catron sq dealer 46 min Joker 2
Knox county marijuana petition starting !!! 56 min Knox Resident 4
burger king service sucks!! 4 hr cracker jack 8
Christella H 5 hr All mine 1
tess fisher (Nov '10) 7 hr NoGod 14
Suspicious Activity in Cranes Nest area on 1803... 8 hr Lmao 4
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]