Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 163318 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.

SistaNoneYouBiz

Manchester, KY

#109892 Aug 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, so you cited the Adam and Eve finds to show science should know the origins of the Y chromosomes? You must know their was a male female split long before humans, right?
Now why is it ironic that science has not pinpointed the origin? If you are going to charge it as ironic, then at least explain why? And just what was the point of bringing up Adam and Eve?
"Mitochondrial Adam and Eve"
Chromosome Eve-traceable.
Chromosome Adam-still remains UNKNOWN.

That simple enough, for Adams' sake??

(If so that would be great, then I won't have to stoop to the ghetto, gutter low level snarky route of juvenile kindergarten theatrics!!)!)
SistaNoneYouBiz

Manchester, KY

#109893 Aug 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Believe what you wish.
I speak of a different type of perfection than superficial perfection. I'm talking about living sin-free.
and that's what REALLY bothers the ones that aren't as lol.
SistaNoneYouBiz

Manchester, KY

#109894 Aug 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>You mean ancient barbaric stuff like this?
25 Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple….. 33 So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
All in the way it's read.

Kind of like, if anyone doesn't clean the logs out of their own eyes, and open their minds for the greater enlightened perspectives...

Then you might as well just expect a --"How's that living mired under a dark age, mudhole rock working out for ya?"

SistaNoneYouBiz

Manchester, KY

#109895 Aug 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard of the Maccabees but not of the other that you posted. Interesting
Kind of like a point A in World History; 160 BC-37BC or so...Simon, Jonathan, Judah, 2nd, 3rd and 4rth gens on into the times of Herod the Great.

(Who'd've thought huh!! Strongly researched scholarly Secular books even- that speak of some of the SAME exact people, places and events as found in the Bible!!!!)
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#109896 Aug 7, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't brought ANY topics up to discuss-all you've done is stoop to kindergarten bullchit.
But thx for being a shining example of just exactly what an "ignorant troll" is, mired up in your own ignorance, so much so ,you can't even see it in yourself, because of the loads of bullchit up to your own eyes!!
(and the rest of your post is as usual, just more garbage and kindergarten level attacks against another, not even worth the time it would take to wipe my tail with you.)
Thanks! You just proved my point of you being a TROLL!!!

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109897 Aug 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Glad to see you actually answering the question asked.
I would want the books at the church to recognize I am no longer a member, but it has nothing to do with you guys knocking on my door wanting to talk to me.
Seems you automatically put the two together for some reason.
Because they are directly related. Why?
1. You are on a roster and eventually will be visited by some eager home teacher.
2. No one will ever know your desire to have your name removed from the church records because you never took the time to express this in a letter to the church. So face to face contact would be the only way this would happen because the initiative would come from the guy in number 1 since you did not have that initiative.

That's why I automatically put those two together.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109898 Aug 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So then show us you really dispute some of the claims of the bible and denounce one or two of them?
Do you condone how god supposedly drowned all the humans and animals on the planet?
Do you condone Moses's actions of having three thousand men, women and children slain for worshiping a golden calf god?
I do not dispute claims of the Bible. I do think there are translation errors and quite a bit that is left out of the Bible, whether intentional or unintentional, that should have been in it. Because I don't believe it was supposed to be left to interpretation and open up the opportunity for so many different denominations or opinions on the meaning of scripture.

I don't need to condone God's actions. I simply accept them and humble myself before Him.

Man is His creation. And man's spirit and resurrected body are eternal. So taking them out of this earthly experience doesn't mean they cease to exist. If He deemed that they were willingly that evil that it was going to hurt the children that wished to be good, then I can accept that He took them out of the game, so to speak. They still exist, just not on earth. They showed that they weren't ready for the freedom He gave them, so He took it back. Those that perished before the age of accountability, would go directly to live in the presence of God and be spared from being raised by parents that practiced iniquity.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109899 Aug 7, 2013
SistaNoneYouBiz wrote:
<quoted text>Kind of like a point A in World History; 160 BC-37BC or so...Simon, Jonathan, Judah, 2nd, 3rd and 4rth gens on into the times of Herod the Great.

(Who'd've thought huh!! Strongly researched scholarly Secular books even- that speak of some of the SAME exact people, places and events as found in the Bible!!!!)
Cool. Can't wait to look that up

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109900 Aug 7, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Yes, that is a familiar idea. I do remember reading about it or hearing about it at some point but the details are extremely fuzzy in my mind.

It's interesting stuff. The earth doesn't give a damn about how it might inconvenience us.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109901 Aug 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Where does this doctrine come from? Prior to Moses I don't recall a whole lot of information in the Bible about priests and priesthoods. But then again it is a dreadfully boring book to read so I might have skimmed that part.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109902 Aug 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
1. You suggested that god is behind everything but he doesn't want us to know it so we can't know it. That type of argument is a non-argument. It is the same as me saying Jimi Hendrix created the universe and lives on a toilet in the sky. But since he is all powerful and doesn't want you to know it you cannot know it.

See how that argument fails to be an argument? It's just a naked assertion that puts itself outside the scope of any possible refutation.

That is exactly what you did with your "god created natural laws" argument. You set god up to appear as if he does not exist, therefore no amount of scientific investigation can possibly prove him.

It's a non argument. It's an avoidance of having an argument. It's basically vacuous.

2. The problem is you are playing fast and loose with the word "perfect". You only talk about Jesus as being perfect because that is what you believe him to be. But Jesus lived a mortal life and was killed in a mortal way. That is not perfect. Perfection, philosophically, involves a whole set of properties. One of those properties is that a perfect being would not require being created.

So if god has a daddy then god is not perfect. And neither is daddy, because a perfect being would have no need or reason to create anything less than perfect.

But that gets us into some pretty deep territory and I don't profess to be an expert in debating philosophy. I'm just pointing out that having a creator creates problems for any claims of perfection.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109903 Aug 7, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
"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!!:-)
Well alrighty then. If you aren't claiming that Noah's Ark was a real boat built by a family lead by a man over a hundred years of age who managed to gather two of ever god-damned animal on the planet then we have no quarrel.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109904 Aug 7, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me clear it up for you.
Atheists and science claim that Life and intelligence were created by some means,other than intelligent design,thereby denying God's role in our creation.
But science,in their search to create life,has resorted to using their intellect and ability to reason and plan in order to create the building blocks of life.
Now,they have accomplished that minor point,not by waiting around for it to happen,they created the method by which this result was accomplished..
What does that mean,or signify?
Even though they are nowhere near to achieving what they will probably never achieve,create life,what little they have achieved has been solely due to their Intelligent Design of that project,it did not happen by accident.
What they have confirmed is that,without intelligent design,they would have gotten nowhere.
So,we were created by an intelligence beyond our human understanding.
We did not evolve as a resultg of an unwitnessed accident that occurred in some mudhole at an unspecified time and place and for which there is no record to be found anywhere.....
Anyone claiming to have been born as a result of an accident,can blame their parents for not practicing birth control.
And I must repeat
The God I believe in is alive and well..Has,is and always will be....
Christ did for me, what I could never do for myself,pay for my sins and redeemed my soul...
You are quite wrong about most things as usual.

First, science does not try to disprove god. It doesn't cut god out of the picture. You need there to BE a god before you can cut it out.

Science proceeds from the null hypothesis: assume natural causes, assume that which requires the least amount of assumptions. Then go through the process of finding the best explanations to match the data. In order for god to be even part of that equation we'd have to know that god exists and what god is, at least to some degree.

We know nothing about god or gods other that what some people believe and what is written in story books.

Now, owing to the fact that science studies nature, obviously we assume life arose naturally. There is really no alternative to that idea if you want to do actual science. And it is a real bitch of a problem to solve. The origins of life are quite ancient and there might not be any significant clues left behind as to how it actually came about. All we can really do is search and offer ideas to be tested.

From your Bible perspective that is not good enough. You already have your answer, written in your book by ancient herders. You have no interest in learning anything new.

Answer this. If science was to suddenly acknowledge your god how exactly would they go about doing it? What sort of research or technical paper could be written on that subject? Do you have some god DNA or god poop we can examine? Can you point to a natural phenomenon that requires a supernatural explanation?

You could be famous overnight.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109905 Aug 7, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Might I add, due to the fantastic claims that are surely not true, I conclude the god claims of why their was a flood are also myth.
Oh so typical of people to attribute natural disasters to god, yet they somehow think he is so loving as their loved ones die or lose all their belongings to said disaster.
Right. And its weak sauce, isn't it? A being so powerful he created everything. But he has to use rain to kill people.

I love it when idiots like Pat Robertson (why is that mummy not dead yet?) claim that natural disasters are the word of god punishing us. It's dumb, because these disasters also affect religious people. And it's also funny because if that's the extent of gods power he is truly a sorry excuse for a celestial dictator.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109907 Aug 7, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>Where does this doctrine come from? Prior to Moses I don't recall a whole lot of information in the Bible about priests and priesthoods. But then again it is a dreadfully boring book to read so I might have skimmed that part.
It is there. The most memorable place for me right now is where Abraham, even as the prophet, tithed to the high priest Melchisidek.
Tammie Johnson

Richmond, KY

#109908 Aug 7, 2013
Well I guess it is okay to teach our children there is no God, right or that they are not aloud to speak about their God? People are ridiculous anymore. Every thing offends everyone. I get offended but I let it roll off my back. Why can't people just ignore what they don't like instead of making it a issue and trying to sue everyone. Good grief people live your life and stop worrying about what others are going to say. This is a free country or is it?
kellerman wrote:
It's not appropriate to teach religion in school. we live in a diverse society and can't teach all religions in schools. One has to keep these separate, it's up to the parents to inform their children on religious upbringing. I thought this issue was long solved, but i see it keeps coming back up.
Tammie Johnson

Richmond, KY

#109909 Aug 7, 2013
This is all about politics. No one minded when our country was doing great and how it was founded under God. Now since our country has turned away from God, no good has come from it and it is just getting worse. Lord have mercy on us, I pray.

“Topix Idiotae plena estut tibi”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#109920 Aug 8, 2013
Tammie Johnson wrote:
This is all about politics. No one minded when our country was doing great and how it was founded under God. Now since our country has turned away from God, no good has come from it and it is just getting worse. Lord have mercy on us, I pray.
Our country was not in any way, shape, or form founded under God. If you look at the founding fathers you'd have a tough time finding a Christian amongst the bunch. Our country was founded on the principle of all men being equal, a government for the people, by the people, and of the people, and a government that didn't endorse or denounce any religion.

The separation of church and state were made very clear in the Constitution as well as the writings of several founding fathers, most prominently and often from Jefferson. This nation has been "under God" since 1954 when it was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in an effort to fight the godless communists during the Cold War. "In God We Trust" was added to our money on some coins in 1864, for the same reason. That motto hasn't even been constant, it's been taken off and put back on several times, but has been on every coin issued since 1938.

So, as you can see, this nation was NOT founded "under God". This is most evident in the Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified in 1797 and whose first line reads: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

So, get this "Christian nation" nonsense out of your head. This nation never has been, and likely never shall be, a "Christian nation".

“Topix Idiotae plena estut tibi”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#109921 Aug 8, 2013
In my last post ignore the phrase "for the same reason" regarding our money. I had one thought going and then rewrote the sentence and missed cutting out that portion. My mistake.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109922 Aug 8, 2013
Tammie Johnson wrote:
This is all about politics. No one minded when our country was doing great and how it was founded under God. Now since our country has turned away from God, no good has come from it and it is just getting worse. Lord have mercy on us, I pray.
The other poster replied to this, pointing out the fallacy of the "Christian nation" idea. That's a modern invention, oddly invented for the purpose of getting votes. So you are the one who is arguing from a political point of view. Thank you, Ronald Reagan for saddling the fiscal Conservatives with the Fundamentalists and giving us Michele Bachmann.

In truth, Christianity enjoys nearly *absolute* privilege in this country. When you say we are "moving away from god" what you should really be saying is "we are being treated more like equals than masters".

Do you know how hard it would be for an agnostic or atheist to get elected to any Federal position? Several years ago I only knew of 1 atheist in Washington. Today I'm not sure what the numbers are. But if an otherwise perfectly qualified, even beloved, person ran for a major office and was openly atheistic he or she would almost certainly NOT get elected. Yet we will vote for complete idiots like Michele Bachmann because they name-drop Jesus every ten seconds.

Yeah...we are "moving away from god" alright. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a church.

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
What happened to Connie davenport? 20 min The Specialist 31
Barbourville is a nice little town.. 22 min lucy 41
Dustin Mills , Colonel ‘Joe’ Golden 1 hr really sick people 12
Tyra Smith is amazing, sweet person. 2 hr Petty Patty 1
Tyra smith 2 hr Petty Patty 4
Tyra smith 2 hr Petty Patty 2
Tyra smith 2 hr Petty Patty 13
I would like to know if any Knox county teacher... Tue Truth 65

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages